From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jan 15 10:17:00 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69CB81065672; Thu, 15 Jan 2009 10:17:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dimitry@andric.com) Received: from tensor.andric.com (cl-327.ede-01.nl.sixxs.net [IPv6:2001:7b8:2ff:146::2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DA248FC12; Thu, 15 Jan 2009 10:17:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dimitry@andric.com) Received: from [IPv6:2001:7b8:3a7:0:9495:274b:b36c:ce34] (unknown [IPv6:2001:7b8:3a7:0:9495:274b:b36c:ce34]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by tensor.andric.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2BA7811F838; Thu, 15 Jan 2009 11:16:59 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <496F0D1D.7080505@andric.com> Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 11:17:01 +0100 From: Dimitry Andric User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.2; en-US; rv:1.9.1b3pre) Gecko/20090108 Shredder/3.0b2pre MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Roman Divacky References: <20090115084515.GA91157@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20090115084515.GA91157@freebsd.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Sabeeh Baig Subject: Re: Alternatives to gcc (was Re: gcc 4.3: when will it become standard compiler?) X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 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: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 10:17:00 -0000 On 2009-01-15 09:45, Roman Divacky wrote: > I really dont see any reason why there must be only ONE compiler that > can be used to compile FreeBSD. I completely agree. When I said earlier in this thread "dependence on GNU gcc has always been bad", I did NOT mean to say that gcc is bad in itself, just the dependence on any particular C/C++ compiler. This is also why it is worthwile to go for C89 or C99 standards compliance. The less exotic (read: gcc-specific) extensions, the better.