Removing default build of gcc

[Pedro Giffuni]

On 01/25/2013 15:44, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
...
>>> I am really tired of the constant struggle against the consumation of
>>> the FreeBSD as the test-bed for the pre-alpha quality software. E.g.,
>>> are we fine with broken C++ runtime in 9 ?
>> The libstdc++ issue is really REALLY worrying.
>> I would prefer if the hack to attempt using libstdc++ as a filter
>> library were reverted altogether in 9.x.
>>
>> I had a lots of stress with that issue as some people pointed at
>> my libstdc++ updates as possible root cause. I felt some natural
>> relief when the real cause was found but I certainly wonder why
>> the change was made in 9.x though since it's clear that codebase
>> will not be migrated to libc++.
> You were finger-pointed due to the rule 'blame the last committer
> from the VCS log'. Even less so, you were asked about it because
> you probably knew most about possible cause.
Oh, I was finger-pointed quite long ago, but I didn't find the
issue until you also fingerpointed so retroactively
fingerpointing was clearly the right thing to do. It was
nevertheless stressful as this is a pretty critical issue.
C++ is (partially) broken in a stable release!

> I am not worried about the bug itself, which needs a proper
> identification and fixing. I am indeed wery disappointed regarding the
> attitude of the person who introduced the bug. Reverting the split may
> be the best action in my opinion. Both in head and stable.

I am aware a fix is being worked on. I think that as long as
the default compiler/C++ library works it is OK to make things
easier for other compilers. I am OK with having that change in
-current but for 9.x it is simply unacceptable.

Pedro.