Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 08:47:23 -0800 From: Garrett Cooper <yanefbsd@gmail.com> To: Roman Divacky <rdivacky@freebsd.org> Cc: "freebsd-current@freebsd.org" <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>, Christoph Mallon <christoph.mallon@gmx.de>, Pegasus Mc Cleaft <ken@mthelicon.com>, Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu>, Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Alternatives to gcc (was Re: gcc 4.3: when will it become standard compiler?) Message-ID: <0C40A289-8A7D-4492-A58B-914E566D40DE@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20090114152628.GA35621@freebsd.org> References: <20090113044111.134EC1CC0B@ptavv.es.net> <20090113222023.GA51810@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> <496D1ED6.4090202@FreeBSD.org> <496DD37E.5010900@gmx.de> <58DAD35B6CCC476E89B9D02F51041E87@PegaPegII> <20090114134436.GA15158@freebsd.org> <20090114152524.GA23889@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <20090114152628.GA35621@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Jan 14, 2009, at 7:26, Roman Divacky <rdivacky@freebsd.org> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 07:25:24AM -0800, Steve Kargl wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 02:44:36PM +0100, Roman Divacky wrote: >>> On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 01:38:56PM -0000, Pegasus Mc Cleaft wrote: >>>>> Doug Barton schrieb: >>>>>> Pegasus Mc Cleaft wrote: >>>>>>> At the moment you can already compile gcc 4.3 from the ports >>>>>>> tree, >>>>>>> however things like binutils only seems to exist in the ports >>>>>>> as a cross >>>>>>> compiling tool. How hard would it be to add binutils as a port >>>>>>> and make >>>>>>> the gcc 4.x ports dependent on it? This way you can install >>>>>>> gcc 4.3 with >>>>>>> the assembler and linker that play nice together during the >>>>>>> build? At >>>>>>> the moment, I have had to make binutils from a gnu downloaded >>>>>>> source and >>>>>>> then make gcc 4.3 with a silly make, IE: make AS=/usr/local/ >>>>>>> bin/as >>>>>>> .......... >>>>>> >>>>>> I think this would be an excellent approach. I am not sure I >>>>>> agree >>>>>> with the idea that we _must_ have a compiler toolchain in the >>>>>> base but >>>>>> it should definitely be possible to "replace" the toolchain in >>>>>> the >>>>>> base with one from ports with a minimum of hassle. >>>> >>>> I'm not sure I like the idea of not having _a_ compiler in the >>>> base. I'm >>>> not really sure how that would work when you wanted to update and >>>> build the >>>> sources. I suppose you would need to install a binary port of the >>>> compiler >>>> (et. all) before you could build a more recent tool-chain. >>>> >>>> Perhapse another option.... >>>> >>>> If gcc 4.2 && buildtools 2.15 is the end of the road for what >>>> BSD is >>> >>> has anyone actually LOOKED? I think the binutils are still under >>> gplv2 >>> >>> at least this is what their root COPYRIGHT file says >>> >>> http://sourceware.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/src/COPYING?cvsroot=src >>> >> >> It's not true. >> >> http://sourceware.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/src/gas/?cvsroot=src >> >> See COPYING. > > so something is GPLv3 and something is still GPLv2.... too bad gas > falls into the v3 category :( A number of gnu stuff isn't straightforward when it comes to licensing. Take gcc for instance: it's actually gpl v2 and v3, but it all varies based on what file you look at. I'm just amazed glibc isn't gplv3 yet. -Garrett
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?0C40A289-8A7D-4492-A58B-914E566D40DE>