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

On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 01:38:56PM -0000, 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 

has anyone actually LOOKED? I think the binutils are still under gplv2

at least this is what their root COPYRIGHT file says

http://sourceware.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/src/COPYING?cvsroot=src


if this is true there is no reason for not updating the in-tree binutils