From owner-svn-src-all@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Dec 29 05:00:01 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-all@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6B4C1065670 for ; Tue, 29 Dec 2009 05:00:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mail2.fluidhosting.com (mx21.fluidhosting.com [204.14.89.4]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 565748FC17 for ; Tue, 29 Dec 2009 05:00:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 5435 invoked by uid 399); 29 Dec 2009 05:00:00 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO foreign.dougb.net) (dougb@dougbarton.us@127.0.0.1) by localhost with ESMTPAM; 29 Dec 2009 05:00:00 -0000 X-Originating-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-Sender: dougb@dougbarton.us Message-ID: <4B398CD1.306@FreeBSD.org> Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 21:00:01 -0800 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://SupersetSolutions.com/ User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20091206) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "M. Warner Losh" References: <20091221220004.GA42400@alchemy.franken.de> <20091221.211648.632868945383134253.imp@bsdimp.com> <4B3129CD.20908@FreeBSD.org> <20091226.012231.475505532728794904.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <20091226.012231.475505532728794904.imp@bsdimp.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0 OpenPGP: id=D5B2F0FB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: svn-src-head@FreeBSD.org, svn-src-all@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r200797 - head/lib/libc/stdtime X-BeenThere: svn-src-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "SVN commit messages for the entire src tree \(except for " user" and " projects" \)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 05:00:01 -0000 M. Warner Losh wrote: > In message: <4B3129CD.20908@FreeBSD.org> > Doug Barton writes: > : M. Warner Losh wrote: > : > We really need newer binutils in the tree. > : > > : > And we need a way to compiler gplv3 binutils into the system for folks > : > that can do that without consequences... But many modern processors > : > need to have the gplv3 version of binutils and that will be a > : > continuing problem. One advantage of FreeBSD is its integration, > : > rather than having to play version whack-a-mole like you do with > : > embedded Linux. > : > : When "we" last had the gplv3 discussion there were two lines of > : thought that were proposed. One is "import llvm/clang" and the other > : was "improve the infrastructure to support toolchains from ports." I > : know that the llvm/clang project is moving forward, and I think that's > : a great long-term direction. > > Assuming that it supports the architectures we need well, which at the > present time it isn't clear that it will... The details of what compiler we use in the base aren't really interesting to me for the purpose of this discussion. I hope that we can find a BSD licensed alternative that's suitable for the base, but I think we are already getting left behind in terms of "things that require more recent compilers" and it's only going to get worse. > : In the short term I think we are well served on all fronts to modify > : the build architecture to better support compilers from ports. This > : would actually help with the llvm/clang testing too, and sidestep the > : problems of gplv3 stuff being in the base. TMK there has been no work > : on this direction at all, which is disappointing. > > The problem is that it really isn't a terribly viable solution, so why > waste a bunch of time on it? You're disregarding this as a possible solution because the concept doesn't fit your idea of what's possible or desirable. With all due respect I think closing your mind to the possibility is premature. > Does the build-world stop in the middle and rebuild stuff? Huh? Are you asking whether a world build with a compiler from ports should rebuild the port(s)? If so, I think the answer is pretty obviously no. > Right now we have finely matched libraries and > compilers, how does one address that problem with the compiler out in > the ports? One could argue that the current situation is actually not desirable, and making it more "plug and play" is a good goal regardless of what compiler we use. > You'll need a matched set of binutils as well (well, > matched meaning known compatible here), and the build system has a > strong bias towards the compiler knowing which ones to use.. These > problems can all be surmounted, but it just feels like a big kludge. Funny, I feel the same way about the current system. :) Doug -- Improve the effectiveness of your Internet presence with a domain name makeover! http://SupersetSolutions.com/