Alternatives to gcc (was Re: gcc 4.3: when will it becomestandard compiler?)

[Pedro F. Giffuni]

--- On Sat, 1/31/09, bf <bf2006a at yahoo.com> wrote:
...

> The license is _a_ consideration, but not the _only_ consideration
> for including some useful code.  I don't know much about the
> readline case, but it was my impression that libedit was considered
> and then rejected, ...

Nope, you don't know much about the readline case. Dig the patches if you like, but I don't see how updating them will change things. It was not done simply because no one saw much value in doing it, just like there isn't much value into adding license complexity to our base compiler for some theoretical (5% was it?) improvements.

> Because it has a large number of bugfixes and improvements over gcc
> 4.2.x. Read the changelogs for examples.

Even with these "evident" bugfixes and improvements the situation is pretty lame. The growing complexity of the gcc codebase is one of the reasons why the other BSDs are forking pcc.

I certainly have great respect for the tough work that gerald@ puts into this but I have no interest in becoming a gcc guru. We do lack some serious compiler/toolchain gurus and I'm sure the llvm/pcc developers welcome patches too.

Pedro.