Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 14:44:36 +0100 From: Roman Divacky <rdivacky@freebsd.org> To: Pegasus Mc Cleaft <ken@mthelicon.com> Cc: Christoph Mallon <christoph.mallon@gmx.de>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Alternatives to gcc (was Re: gcc 4.3: when will it become standard compiler?) Message-ID: <20090114134436.GA15158@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <58DAD35B6CCC476E89B9D02F51041E87@PegaPegII> References: <20090113044111.134EC1CC0B@ptavv.es.net> <20090113222023.GA51810@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> <496D1ED6.4090202@FreeBSD.org> <496DD37E.5010900@gmx.de> <58DAD35B6CCC476E89B9D02F51041E87@PegaPegII>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 01:38:56PM -0000, Pegasus Mc Cleaft wrote: > >Doug Barton schrieb: > >>Pegasus Mc Cleaft wrote: > >>>At the moment you can already compile gcc 4.3 from the ports tree, > >>>however things like binutils only seems to exist in the ports as a cross > >>>compiling tool. How hard would it be to add binutils as a port and make > >>>the gcc 4.x ports dependent on it? This way you can install gcc 4.3 with > >>>the assembler and linker that play nice together during the build? At > >>>the moment, I have had to make binutils from a gnu downloaded source and > >>>then make gcc 4.3 with a silly make, IE: make AS=/usr/local/bin/as > >>>.......... > >> > >>I think this would be an excellent approach. I am not sure I agree > >>with the idea that we _must_ have a compiler toolchain in the base but > >>it should definitely be possible to "replace" the toolchain in the > >>base with one from ports with a minimum of hassle. > > I'm not sure I like the idea of not having _a_ compiler in the base. I'm > not really sure how that would work when you wanted to update and build the > sources. I suppose you would need to install a binary port of the compiler > (et. all) before you could build a more recent tool-chain. > > Perhapse another option.... > > If gcc 4.2 && buildtools 2.15 is the end of the road for what BSD is has anyone actually LOOKED? I think the binutils are still under gplv2 at least this is what their root COPYRIGHT file says http://sourceware.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/src/COPYING?cvsroot=src if this is true there is no reason for not updating the in-tree binutils
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090114134436.GA15158>