Alternatives to gcc (was Re: gcc 4.3: when will
it become standard compiler?)
O. Hartmann
ohartman at zedat.fu-berlin.de
Wed Jan 14 06:51:38 PST 2009
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
> able to include under GPL V2. Can we draw a line under it and continue
> to include it as buildable with the world if a configure option like
> "option BUILDGCC42" is in the kernel config file? This way an admin who
> wanted to build it and use it as a primer could, before downloading the
> port and building the later versions (if he wanted to, or there
> organization allowed him to). Some of the older *nix's I have worked on
> (OSF/1, HPUX, SCO, etc) have a very basic (but normally optimized
> compiler) for that platform that is enough to compile a version of gcc
> that will be used to compile other tools and services.
>
>
>>> On the one hand I like the "BSD approach" of sticking with tools that
>>> work rather than constantly chasing the latest and greatest. However I
>>> think we can run the risk of becoming mired in our own success, and
>>> losing the agility that we'll need to keep things moving forward in
>>> what will only become a more dynamic environment.
>
> I have always loved the way that BSD (and most *nix's) have most of the
> tools I need out of the box to get a system running (or running again if
> it gets completely borked)
>
> ~Peg
Well, not having a compiler in the base system can be frustrating, even
if you're used to be free and independent. SUN extracted by the end of
the 90s the C compiler from their operating system and that was for some
of my colleagues a very frustrating experience. Yes, you can install a
'package', but ...
More information about the freebsd-current
mailing list