From owner-freebsd-toolchain@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Aug 29 16:06:34 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: toolchain@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 6DF2523D for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 16:06:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Received: from mail-oa0-f46.google.com (mail-oa0-f46.google.com [209.85.219.46]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 34BDB245B for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 16:06:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-oa0-f46.google.com with SMTP id o20so840040oag.19 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 09:06:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:subject:mime-version:content-type:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references :to; bh=/UhBaMQzsCkEvg6hrbtdN7tsQsTKlvYHTJTlzZ5a2Bk=; b=jX8AHgRrvB6Rc4R2/MsJdUSPxYYseVVWW14UDT3QMsSd8N2AQwGGU7cFidlOUuoQsE 4IGD/qqEI2trvhehO3CYPXzvi8U57HfBU+PTDGn/MMEHLfDqw4LquGsMytIT7+YCojsM vLfx6dwzv9gvmBcst4JEzqNEwDXUQGmn1eCCEm83kiYU17/afxyD5hv3MgMayOLFjcCJ HrOx0CGbFh24kpTqRTqqhoYf7CPhnzcjvgrcct8ZlQcegzt9mcd4UwRhUFdoJHqsV3vX rdf2bVsob+5exz2R8n9hmT4WzmHu8IeqhNLC6A6v36U2Yr5sfhmD9kbLh6t4/ebq+jWr 5a1A== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmpbFLtGniKaDRSRwrbyp7DCzfv799YOzg77GscTVOqOl4sVXUF0MWE0C2+o60TMQeQCmA9 X-Received: by 10.60.70.134 with SMTP id m6mr3060094oeu.14.1377792022904; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 09:00:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monkey-bot.int.fusionio.com ([209.117.142.2]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id tz10sm32053985obc.10.1969.12.31.16.00.00 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 29 Aug 2013 09:00:22 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Warner Losh Subject: Re: GCC withdraw Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Warner Losh In-Reply-To: <201308291057.43027.jhb@freebsd.org> Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 10:00:19 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <20130822200902.GG94127@funkthat.com> <201308291057.43027.jhb@freebsd.org> To: John Baldwin X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085) Cc: FreeBSD Current , toolchain@freebsd.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, "Sam Fourman Jr." , Boris Samorodov X-BeenThere: freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Maintenance of FreeBSD's integrated toolchain List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 16:06:34 -0000 On Aug 29, 2013, at 8:57 AM, John Baldwin wrote: > On Saturday, August 24, 2013 7:19:22 am David Chisnall wrote: >> On 24 Aug 2013, at 11:30, "Sam Fourman Jr." = wrote: >>=20 >>> So I vote, let's not give ourselves the burden of "lugging" dead = weight in >>> base >>> for another 5 years. (in 2017 do we still want to be worrying about = gcc in >>> base?) >>=20 >> Perhaps more to the point, in 2017 do we want to be responsible for >> maintaining a fork of a 2007 release of gcc and libstdc++? >=20 > This is a red herring and I'd wish you'd stop bringing it up = constantly. > GCC has not needed constant care and feeding in the 7.x/8.x/9.x = branches > and it won't need it in 10.x either. I have not seen any convincing > argument as to why leaving GCC in the base for 10.x impedes anything. > Because clang isn't sufficient for so many non-x86 platforms we can't > really start using clang-specific features yet anyway. Agreed. Gcc is still an absolute requirement on all non-x86 platforms = (including arm) due to the issues with clang. Some of these issues are = bugs in specific things (arm) that keep coming up (and keep getting = fixed), while others are more severe (sparc64 has no clang support, and = no way to generate a self-hosting system in the absence of a bootstrap = gcc in the base, even with the external toolchain support). gcc will absolutely be in the base for 10. That's the long-standing = agreement that we've had, and breaking it now at the 11th hour is going = to totally screw up !x86 platforms and really piss off a lot of = developers for no good reason. The time is long since past to change = this plan. This is the plan of record, and we need to stick to it: 10: clang default, where possible, gcc in base otherwise 11: clang default, full external toolchain support, including = self-hosting So the time for voting and carping has long since past. Warner=