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

--- On Sat, 1/31/09, Pedro F. Giffuni <giffunip_at_tutopia.com> wrote:

> From: Pedro F. Giffuni <giffunip_at_tutopia.com>
> Subject: Re: Alternatives to gcc (was Re: gcc 4.3: when will it becomestandard compiler?)
> To: "Mark Linimon" <linimon_at_lonesome.com>, bf2006a_at_yahoo.com
> Cc: current_at_FreeBSD.org, "Sean Cavanaugh" <Millenia2000_at_hotmail.com>
> Date: Saturday, January 31, 2009, 8:32 PM
> --- 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

Let us assume that you are correct.  If no one else saw much value in
doing it, and you don't think it's worth the effort, then what _are_
you complaining about?


> 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.
> 

Well, gcc certainly isn't ideal.  But the improvements are real, even
if there may be some regressions, too.  And the effort involved in porting
gcc 4.3.x may well be less than that required to enable pcc to compile
the base on all platforms, let alone most of the third-party software.

b.