Re: patch to add AES intrinsics to gcc

On 08/26/2013 03:12, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Aug 2013, Warner Losh wrote:
>>> "If you push gcc out to a port, and you have the 'external compiler'
>>> toolchain support working correctly enough to build with this, why
>>> don't we just push clang out to a port, and be done with it?"
>> This is a stupid idea. It kills the tightly integrated nature of
>> FreeBSD. I'd say it is far too radical a departure and opens up a
>> huge can of "which version of what compiler" nightmare that we've
>> largely dodged to date because we had one (or maybe two) compilers
>> in the base system.
>
> I am working towards establishing lang/gcc as _the_ version of GCC
> to use for ports.
>
> Today I looked at a couple of those GCC cross-compilers we have in
> ports, and I have to admit I am not thrilled.  Each of those I saw
> copies a lot from (older version of my ports), each has a different
> maintainer, each has some additions, and there is little consistency.
>

Perhaps you could have a look at the fact that lang/gcc is at 4.6.3, and
lang/gcc46 is no more a snapshot but a true release 4.6.4.

IMHO, lang/gcc must be discontinued, or updated to 4.6.4 and lang/gcc46
discontinued ?

> Are these the base of 'external compiler' toolchain support?  Are
> there any plans to increase consistency and reduce redundancy?  In
> an ideal world, could those become slave ports of lang/gcc?
>
> Gerald

Claude Buisson