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

On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 6:39 AM, Roman Divacky <rdivacky_at_freebsd.org> wrote:
>> > 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 :)
>

I don't think this is really a question of "Can gcc work in base right
now?". Everyone knows it can, because that's what's actually being
used at this very moment. At the same time, I don't think there's any
real argument in saying that eventually FreeBSD will have to switch to
either a new compiler, or a new version of gcc, with the GPLv3
nightmare that could entail (Maybe that's a few years from now, I have
no idea, but it's still going to need to happen, and its not as though
switching will get easier with time.) From my perspective, there seem
to be two real questions:

First, are the two compilers mutually exclusive? (I don't believe they are.)
Second, is there a particular reason not to do this now, that will not
exist later? (I'm not that current on what's going on.. but from what
I can tell, my thought here is no, too.)

It's not as though this is irreversible. It's always possible to make
the change, realize clang won't cut it just yet, and switch back a few
hours/days/weeks/whatever later. Or, like I said earlier, if it's
possible, run both.

--- Harrison