Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 12:22:21 -0000 From: "Pegasus Mc Cleaft" <ken@mthelicon.com> To: "FuLLBLaSTstorm" <fullblaststorm@gmail.com>, <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Alternatives to gcc (was Re: gcc 4.3: when will it become standardcompiler?) Message-ID: <9225949D37F24E01AA5FC01169A256F2@PegaPegII> In-Reply-To: <6c51dbb10901150344s409cd834p3cd8fae189e42a68@mail.gmail.com> References: <de2964020901141507m5a30c466ta1e05694d220ce0b@mail.gmail.com><20090115084515.GA91157@freebsd.org> <496F0D1D.7080505@andric.com> <6c51dbb10901150344s409cd834p3cd8fae189e42a68@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
----- Original Message -----
From: "FuLLBLaSTstorm" <fullblaststorm@gmail.com>
> 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 fully agree with it, too. Why not to put something like
> OPTION_COMPILER=`gcc|clang|llvm' so every portion of system designed
> for particular compiler could use the right one?
In principla I like the above idea, but...
My own personal feeling is that we should have a single compiler for the
entire base (world && kernel). Use that compiler as the system compiler and
call it "cc". Any other additional compiler can be installed by the user, if
he chooses to do so. If each package / section of the base is compiled with
a undefined and developer choosen one, wouldent we have to include all three
compilers in the base? (Or am I reading this wrong?)
I dont know clang, llvm, pcc, etc. very well, but.. Would this solve our
problem where we will still need an assembler, linker, archiver, et al?
~Peg
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9225949D37F24E01AA5FC01169A256F2>