Re: patch to add AES intrinsics to gcc

On 8/23/13 3:35 AM, David Chisnall wrote:
> On 23 Aug 2013, at 10:58, Bernhard Fröhlich <decke_at_freebsd.org> wrote:
>
>> I don't know if you are aware that IF you really do that we will have serious
>> problems to ship packages for 10. USE_GCC=any is the fallback in the
>> portstree for all ports that are unable to build with clang which was introduced
>> when HEAD switched to clang as default cc. Right now there are 150 ports in
>> the tree that use this fallback and quite a few of them are high profile ports:
>>
>> the highlights:
>> audio/nas devel/mingw32-binutils emulators/qemu emulators/virtualbox-ose
>> emulators/wine lang/go lang/v8 mail/courier math/fftw3 multimedia/libxine
>> multimedia/gstreamer multimedia/gstreamer-plugins multimedia/x264
>> security/clamav
>>
>> the full list:
>> http://dpaste.com/1354075/
>>
>> A possible hack could be to add a check for USE_GCC=any to behave like
>> a USE_GCC=yes on HEAD on the affected platforms. This pulls in lang/gcc
>> from ports for a lot of people on HEAD I suppose.
>>
>> We certainly need to do that switch to remove the ancient gcc from base
>> some time but with my portmgr hat on I can only say we don't plan to do that
>> before 10.0 especially not if we are only talking about a few weeks time window.
> That is unfortunate.  We have said for over a year that 10.0 should not ship with gcc.  I can delay committing the patch to flip the switch until later in the code slush, if re approves, but ports that require gcc should be building with gcc from ports (which will also improve code quality, as gcc 4.6/7 produce significantly better code than 4.2.1).
>
> David
>
> _______________________________________________
>
Why can't ports just then add the old-version of GCC?  This tight 
coupling between src and ports is screwing us over for far too long.

If src needs to move on, and it surely seems like it does, then ports 
needs to adapt.

No offense to either team, but this is just common sense.