From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jan 9 13:12:01 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 64C4F1065670 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2009 13:12:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from yanefbsd@gmail.com) Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com (ug-out-1314.google.com [66.249.92.168]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E42208FC17 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2009 13:12:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from yanefbsd@gmail.com) Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 30so26829ugs.39 for ; Fri, 09 Jan 2009 05:12:00 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=MmqCj3WCrM6pzqQ5Xp5nD8DGa7wn4BlcMH+XxifKii4=; b=M/0MGkf1XdeIiFFKEe9oPZSLbTppDCTajEAba5Kw5LWHdo1Jw2cMIk8yAcij+j9Ev9 PIH5ieQF7eX4iL9/Kb2nBCsZSFqKxGf/ucxMy+0xjYXl8xoBafqwNJPwgGLUBVGfdZxU Qw1vdB4rgkE6zSXOI7kLmYQtits5sbT5Dyfmk= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=PNstuRNLqtpsc3hv9B13nyqstPPFrwPSeTi21fJtArdFAeFx+l9HtzA/fsuhLhivUP vI6vkaOhWW2X5BsOhu3G53B5vp4w3TDVBjz5D4heNRXzuAbVDVc796q2cPucb/eXISYW VVXS1004WLqWFckp2Powzgs79k4wnfPTA/nO4= Received: by 10.67.91.8 with SMTP id t8mr2610343ugl.41.1231506719893; Fri, 09 Jan 2009 05:11:59 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.67.88.9 with HTTP; Fri, 9 Jan 2009 05:11:59 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <7d6fde3d0901090511x21f9109ei527a1998c0f05bf8@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 05:11:59 -0800 From: "Garrett Cooper" To: "Svein Skogen (List Mail Account)" In-Reply-To: <4967259C.9090408@stillbilde.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <49668763.8020705@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de> <49671748.3030709@gmx.de> <4967259C.9090408@stillbilde.net> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: 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: Fri, 09 Jan 2009 13:12:01 -0000 On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 2:23 AM, Svein Skogen (List Mail Account) wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Christoph Mallon wrote: >> O. Hartmann schrieb: >>> When will gcc 4.3 incorporated in FreeBSD 8 and become the standard >>> compiler suite? We figured out that gcc 4.3 does have a speed gain in >>> some numerical code of 3 - 8 % and I guess we can use this in the basic >>> OS as well ... >> >> Number crunching has a totally different execution profile than basic >> operating system services. Gains in one area cannot simply be >> transferred to the other. > > Would it be possible, as a "workaround" to have "system-CC" and > "ports-CC" defined in make.conf, making one CC the compiler for /usr/src > and another for ports, or would this just create debugging nightmares? > > //Svein If setup properly, something similar to what Gentoo Linux for profiled compilers would be a very nice thing to have for `muxing' between development tools. It would just make upgrades potentially more painful though, and it would make tracking viral license tainting more difficult for folks who are on the receiving end, or ones that aren't paying attention to the licensing in the pieces of software they're distributing... The problem is that gcc is indeed lightyears ahead of any other [opensource] compiler available, and the fact that there are a number of bugs being filed against newer releases of gcc which don't translate back necessarily into our version, cleanly. Similarly, gdb has a lot of years of tread behind it as a debugger. If we were to drop either the compiler or the debugger (and I'm pretty sure we'd have to dump both if we dumped one), I believe that it would take another group of individuals an extensive period of time to get back to speed with what's available thanks to the GNU folks now... even if the GNU stuff in its current state is buggy. One thing I'm curious about though: for the bugs that do matter to us, if there is a patch, would the patch be considered GPLv2 or GPLv3 licensed code? Not a lawyer, and I don't expect a lawyer's PoV, but if the fix is truly trivial and it's compatible with the existing license, that would be cool to import I would think... Yes, we should really upgrade binutils though.. newer binutils would bring in a number of bugfixes as well as feature enhancements... Cheers, -Garrett PS Huzzah for R Stallman and his licensing crusade ;(...