From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Aug 24 14:44:42 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 818F54E9; Sat, 24 Aug 2013 14:44:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from julian@freebsd.org) Received: from vps1.elischer.org (vps1.elischer.org [204.109.63.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5007A21A6; Sat, 24 Aug 2013 14:44:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from jre-mbp.elischer.org (etroy.elischer.org [121.45.226.51]) (authenticated bits=0) by vps1.elischer.org (8.14.6/8.14.6) with ESMTP id r7OEibVE005445 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 24 Aug 2013 07:44:40 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from julian@freebsd.org) Message-ID: <5218C6D0.5090403@freebsd.org> Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2013 22:44:32 +0800 From: Julian Elischer User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Roman Divacky Subject: Re: GCC withdraw References: <20130822200902.GG94127@funkthat.com> <105E26EE-8471-49D3-AB57-FBE2779CF8D0@FreeBSD.org> <5217413A.9080105@passap.ru> <20130823111647.GT2951@home.opsec.eu> <52174D51.2050601@digsys.bg> <21414.1377258940@critter.freebsd.dk> <5217A7D8.1030806@freebsd.org> <1377285836.31114.13416825.5F534A08@webmail.messagingengine.com> <52180DD0.3080308@freebsd.org> <20130824074104.GA31021@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20130824074104.GA31021@freebsd.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2013 14:44:42 -0000 On 8/24/13 3:41 PM, Roman Divacky wrote: > On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 09:35:12AM +0800, Julian Elischer wrote: >> On 8/24/13 3:23 AM, Mark Felder wrote: >>> On Fri, Aug 23, 2013, at 13:20, Julian Elischer wrote: >>>> On 8/23/13 7:55 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >>>>> In message <52174D51.2050601@digsys.bg>, Daniel Kalchev writes: >>>>> >>>>>>> - 9.x gcc default and clang in base; >>>>>>> - 10.x clang default and gcc in ports; >>>>>> I believe this is the best idea so far. As long as these ports work with >>>>>> gcc in ports, that is. >>>>> +1 >>>>> >>>> well as I was forced to go back to gcc to get a compiling & running >>>> kernel on my VPS (xen) >>>> I'm not convinced that clang is there yet. I'd be really grumpy if I >>>> had to go through al the ports hoopla to recompile my kernel. >>>> >>>> >>> Curious which Xen version. I'd like to try to replicate this issue. I've >>> seen FreeBSD 10 run just fine on XenServer 6.0 and 6.2. >> I don't know.. whatever RootBSD run, but the fact that I needed gcc >> for anything suggests that we should keep it around for a while. > Why do you need to use gcc for everything? What happens if you use clang? > Be specific, without details this is just FUD. > > Roman > I couldn't even get it to compile a few weeks ago. i386 xen kernel.. gcc breezed straight through (though getting it to boot was another story)