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

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.
> 
> Of course I'm aware that this will entail a non-trivial amount of
> work, not only in changing our existing infrastructure to some extent
> but also work to non-toolchain code so that it can work with newer
> versions of th build tools. However, if we are fortunate and one of
> the current BSDL contenders emerges down the road as a viable
> alternative to gcc most of the work necessary to make this change now
> will have to be done anyway.

I wouldn't hold my breath till then.

> 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.

If you constantly just maintain status quo, you wake up one day and 
notice that you are obsolete.
Checking whether the infrastruture is ready for changes or making the 
necessary modifications so it will be ready, is a good idea.