I'm just catching up with this thread, so apologies if this has already been pointed out elsewhere. One of the things that has been discussed w/rt compilers for a while (not just at the devsummit) was bending our minds around separating the concept of "base system compiler" from "default ports compiler". In -stable branches, we must and shall not do large compiler updates. But ports probably need a more recent compiler (of whatever flavor) just to keep as many of them building as possible. (As upstream authors switch to newer compilers, their ports often don't build on whatever is in our base). Despite my enthusiasm for the future of llvm, the reality is that even in the medium-term there are so many ports with hardwired assumptions that they are running on gcc (not to mention on linux on i386) that it will never be possible to fix them all. The current paradigm is that as ports stop building with both base gcc, unless they are switched to depending on a newer gcc from ports, they'll be marked 'broken' and go through the deprecation cycle. Further, I remind people that "compile" and "run" and "run equally as well through all code-paths" are three completely separate levels of effort, possibly having an order of magnitude more work between each. We're looking at a multi-year process here, and not every single port is going to survive. But again -- not all of them currently do, anwyays. mclReceived on Thu Jun 03 2010 - 22:19:50 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:04 UTC