Alternatives to gcc (was Re: gcc 4.3: when will it
become standard compiler?)
Roman Divacky
rdivacky at freebsd.org
Wed Jan 14 05:45:11 PST 2009
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
if this is true there is no reason for not updating the in-tree binutils
More information about the freebsd-current
mailing list