> > people are already experimenting with clang installed from ports, > > with gcc4.{3,4,5} from ports etc. by not importing clang we can > > maybe delay this a little but it's coming anyway. > I am pretty much fine and happy with people experimenting with clang > or any other compilers from ports, custom built, whatever. This is very > different from importing some compiler into base. See below about "signal". what I wanted to say is that we can get problem reports from people using other compilers than our stock gcc even today. > > > Rather, I would consider the changes to ease the use of any external > > > compiler, from ports or whatever, bent into shape and kept up to date > > > with system progress very important, much less controversial and more > > > useful. Then, addicts of any kool-aid-compiler can drink their potion > > > without starting undesired relations. Unfortunately, this is not what > > > happen. > > > > this is orthogonal to this. we as a project aim for delivering complete > > operating system and we just need a system compiler. gcc4.2.1 just > > cant serve us anymore, we need to do something now. > Please describe why gcc in base cannot serve us anymore while served up > to the minute I got your message. that was summarized in a beautiful way by Scott Long :)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:03 UTC