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

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 
> able to include under GPL V2. Can we draw a line under it and continue 
> to include it as buildable with the world if a configure option like 
> "option BUILDGCC42" is in the kernel config file? This way an admin who 
> wanted to build it and use it as a primer could, before downloading the 
> port and building the later versions (if he wanted to, or there 
> organization allowed him to).  Some of the older *nix's I have worked on 
> (OSF/1, HPUX, SCO, etc) have a very basic (but normally optimized 
> compiler) for that platform that is enough to compile a version of gcc 
> that will be used to compile other tools and services.
> 
> 
>>> 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.
> 
> I have always loved the way that BSD (and most *nix's) have most of the 
> tools I need out of the box to get a system running (or running again if 
> it gets completely borked)
> 
> ~Peg

Well, not having a compiler in the base system can be frustrating, even 
if you're used to be free and independent. SUN extracted by the end of 
the 90s the C compiler from their operating system and that was for some 
of my colleagues a very frustrating experience. Yes, you can install a 
'package', but ...