Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 08:52:34 +0100 From: David Chisnall <theraven@freebsd.org> To: John-Mark Gurney <jmg@funkthat.com> Cc: "Sam Fourman Jr." <sfourman@gmail.com>, toolchain@freebsd.org, Boris Samorodov <bsam@passap.ru>, FreeBSD Current <current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: GCC withdraw Message-ID: <98D31DD3-8A1D-46ED-9BF6-9EBE39640860@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20130831073330.GC36239@funkthat.com> References: <20130822200902.GG94127@funkthat.com> <201308291344.25562.jhb@freebsd.org> <A981C965-D625-458B-B0AB-171C983AEA42@FreeBSD.org> <201308301041.18874.jhb@freebsd.org> <20130831073330.GC36239@funkthat.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--Apple-Mail=_15DB49B9-3C66-4919-82D8-B2BB93E5DFF6 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On 31 Aug 2013, at 08:33, John-Mark Gurney <jmg@funkthat.com> wrote: > Why didn't this come up when John added XSAVE (a year ago) or Pedro > Giffuni added amdfam10 support (3 months ago)? >=20 > Plus, I've sent other patches earlier this year to -toolchain and made > clear why I was adding them... Had I known that the policy was gcc = was > dead for HEAD (which btw, I was told multiple times that we were = keeping > gcc for 10 for i386/amd64), I would have just committed my kernel = changes > by now, but didn't want to break a (what I thought was) supported > configuration... gcc is not dead for 10.0, we're simply wanting to not ship it in binary = form by default. There is a BIG difference between saying 'if you want = gcc then you must explicitly opt in and build it yourself and it may not = be there for the entire 10.x series' and saying 'gcc is gone now, don't = expect any of FreeBSD to build with it'. We are absolutely not = proposing the latter for 10.0. =20 We still expect the 10.0 kernel and most of the userland (libc++ = excepted) to build with gcc. We expect this to be true for 10.1, and = probably 10.2, possibly even 10.3. I'd probably expect that at least = the kernel will build with gcc 4.2.1 for the entire timeframe. Some = modules may not, although for ease of debugging compiler bugs I'd = recommend that if they don't build with gcc 4.2.1 then at least they = build with upstream gcc. However, we want to be able to make it unsupported at some point in the = 10.x series when there is a polished alternative for every supported = architecture (either when they've moved to clang or when the XCC stuff = is fully documented in the handbook and tested in a large variety of = configurations and once our forked binutils and is available as a = package and we have cross-gcc that uses it). If this doesn't happen by = the time 10.x is EOL'd then I'll be sad, but we still have the fall-back = position of gcc in base for the entire 10.x. If it does happen, then we = can start more aggressively phasing out gcc in the base system. =20 > We need to communicate better on issues like these, since this isn't = the > first time one group of people made a decision w/o telling the rest > of the community... For major items like this, we need to make sure > the road map is published, either on www.freebsd.org or on the wiki = and > gets kept up to date... I agree. This is why I made sure that at the BSDCam DevSummit all of = the sessions had someone who was taking notes for their sessions on the = wiki: https://wiki.freebsd.org/201308DevSummit#Schedule-1 (Well, except, somewhat ironically, the docs team, who still haven't put = their notes on the wiki) It's also why I've taken charge of putting out special status reports = for each DevSummit for wider public consumption, like this one: http://www.freebsd.org/news/status/report-2013-05-devsummit.html I'd be interested in hearing any more suggestions about how we can = improve this. > For example, the release schedule for 10 wasn't posted till over a = week > after the code slush was announced (which caught people, like myself, = by > surprise)... That's kinda the wrong order to do it in, the schedule > should be posted well in advance so people know what to expect... This one you'll have to discuss with re@. I think that after 10.0 there = will be some more discussion about our release policy. =20 David --Apple-Mail=_15DB49B9-3C66-4919-82D8-B2BB93E5DFF6 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJSIaDCAAoJEKx65DEEsqIddaIQAMoFVo3wnksWdRfZDNb0bDra hnga7Y6y02S3OVlHJUTtdvvLHTZC58lMSX1S3KHddbGYTgoirnpInPPd1Rqibq2X f980yOlvDksr8MqJvFdPRO7nxw/z+/iBhJaZlrwMJZ5MnZozZ9Lsr/EzRN9DdfaH aLBCWN7EjrYKJOaMPBH1nADYk8TfZw4iNLm18afSTAxd4hX1FHv5WivUsI869deg WQKk9Re5OuidQxl1Sc8c7Y0snXIK2OmNqmMXWjuKr+H2hLZN906lA6lrWxA5Ma4P NsoH/xPbK99dNAAjfA8L5uoqtempjAI8uerAuswbgf4kemwCeruwnvQl5cfsP5hd wcZ8EBkFYYKtonYtk8CTZ3d8cFkb++Rnxumc4DMbPIereeSA7oszIq6vbyewagft uDMtmg9fgP1u3aeJL8tTKXF0l0xTTa+kVRaOU3ahhT3/5VkAGPYZtbR9NuaX85Md 49HTe04u/kUKDNM8vSJCHE0EmAifAT1erEtjBaT8CQ49QlvpDsFtWeGKEQPL6KVv WIGhNfR9Cb/KzgfhLvTJ8a6MEtUTGBpdod0gEUvUtP2zWh84DpX+lDu135ZcvFPY Zok4qSE/2VK3J+wuq5ApFUH7NAXTnJrgTcyHdvKKGu1tWdnjYoDONrXKG4LFgcuD rxHM5svmJHs6TzqExqxo =er+m -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_15DB49B9-3C66-4919-82D8-B2BB93E5DFF6--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?98D31DD3-8A1D-46ED-9BF6-9EBE39640860>