Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 10:59:59 -1000 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Cc: Jerry <jerry@seibercom.net> Subject: Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th Message-ID: <5050F7CF.4070204@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20120912072209.65bc5e3d@scorpio> References: <20120910211207.GC64920@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> <20120911104518.GF37286@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <20120911120649.GA52235@freebsd.org> <20120911122122.GJ37286@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <20120911123833.GA54483@freebsd.org> <848C813E-E6EC-4FAF-9374-B5583A077404@cederstrand.dk> <505055F7.9020809@FreeBSD.org> <20120912072209.65bc5e3d@scorpio>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 9/12/2012 1:22 AM, Jerry wrote: > On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 23:29:27 -1000 > Doug Barton articulated: > >> What we need to do is what I and others have been asking to do for >> years. We need to designate a modern version of gcc (no less than 4.6) >> as the official default ports compiler, and rework whatever is needed >> to support this. Fortunately, that goal is much more easily achieved >> than fixing ports to build and run with clang. (It's harder than it >> sounds because there are certain key libs that define some paths >> depending on what compiler they were built with, but still easier >> than dealing with clang in the short term.) > > That is a well thought out, highly intuitive and completely doable > idea. Therefore it will be ignored. No, it'll be ignored because I suggested it. :) > It seems that the FreeBSD authors are more concerned with the > licensing language of GCC than in getting a fully functioning port's > compiler into the FreeBSD base system. Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting putting the "ports compiler" into the base. I'm suggesting that it be managed as a port, just like pkg is. This works fine for the ports that are already hard-coding compiler dependencies, and mostly worked for me back when I get it a test run when I made the suggestion years ago. The few glitches I (and others who have done it since) ran into just need some elbow grease applied. By keeping ports-related things in the ports tree we gain a huge amount of agility, and lose the concerns about licensing in the base. It's a win/win. Doug
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5050F7CF.4070204>