Re: [TESTING]: ClangBSD branch needs testing before the import to HEAD

On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 06:01:03PM -0500, Brooks Davis wrote:
> On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 03:52:27PM -0700, Tim Kientzle wrote:
> > Matthew Seaman wrote:
> >> Presumably the import of clang to the base does
> >> not mean the immediate removal of gcc.
> > 
> > Of course not.
> > 
> > I'm not part of core and don't know what they
> > may have discussed, but I went through some hoops
> > to replace 'tar' and 'cpio' in the base system
> > and have some idea what approach we might take
> > with clang:
> > 
> > I would expect FreeBSD 9 to ship with both
> > compilers, with gcc as the default for 'cc'.
> > So users of 9-STABLE would see and use gcc
> > unless they specifically chose to use clang.
> > 
> > Even if we did decide to switch the default
> > for FreeBSD 10, it's possible we would continue
> > to install gcc as part of the base system
> > (just not as 'cc').
> > 
> > So realistically, some form of gcc will be built
> > and installed by default for a few more years.
> > Beyond that, it depends partly on how well clang
> > does and partly on how many problems we have with
> > an increasingly out-of-date gcc.
> 
> Exactly.  We will need to take some risks here, but nuking gcc from the
> tree won't be one of them for a while.
> 
> I just sent a link to current and arch with links to the toolchain
> summit wiki page and a summary of the results.  I encorage interested
> parties to read what is there and provide constructive suggestions.

It would be useful to exclude clang or gcc from the build manually.
Both both gcc and clang take a long time to compile.