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 an increasingly out-of-date gcc.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. -- Brooks
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:04 UTC