|
|||
Quote:
ACK is unsuitable for OpenBSD development. It doesn't support anywhere near enough architectures to be given a serious look. LLVM on the other hand, *is* suitable for exactly what you claim it's not: creating system binaries. It's almost like there are whole operating systems out there using LLVM for exactly that. |
|
|||
Quote:
|
|
|||
This is a separate issue.
|
|
|||
Quote:
Vax was upgraded to gcc-3.3.6 a while back and gcc-2.95 was removed from the tree back in August: http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-cvs&m=137581669314878&w=2 |
|
|||
Yes, you claimed that ACK and LLVM were unsuitable for creating system binaries. That is doubly wrong: ACK is the compiler suite for Minix3 and LLVM is the compiler for FreeBSD, among others. You know, entire operating systems.
|
|
||||
Quote:
ACK is retargetable compiler ported to very few architectures whose claim to fame include support for Pascal and Basic among other languages. Comparing Minix and OpenBSD is like comparing the airplane of Writh brothers with Boeing 787. From airspace engineering point of view Writh brothers got fluid dynamics and airodynamcis right. Still would you like to fly in their airplane to Europe? LLVM is written in C++ (Just like GCC 4.8.2) that is pretty much where any discussion about LLVM as a system compiler for Unix-like system should end. Inspite of the fact that I use FreeBSD/FreeNAS at work I actually do not have high opinion about FreeBSD QA. If a modern file system like HAMMER 1 or 2 (when it gets written) gets ported to OpenBSD or if DragonFly BSD gets little more missing infrastructure for enterprise use I would stop using FreeBSD that very day. |
|
|||
This statement is wrong. I'm sorry, but it is. There is no other way to say it.
|
|
|||
Quote:
It's not like gcc or Clang can't still compile C, so what does OpenBSD care if either is implemented in C++? Some people seem to have serious problems with GPL 3, which I don't understand either but... well, feel free to ignore this sentence, this side of the debate, this probably isn't the place and I'm not the person for it. (I should probably try to get Hurd going and be done pretending to be a BSD person but OpenBSD is just too good.) |
|
|||
Quote:
It’s a shame that PCC is dead, since it has some promise. Initially it was pushed as a compiler that is easy to port to new architectures, but in the end nobody stepped up to do the work beyond i386. Still, it’s not the first time OpenBSD has considered a compiler and dropped it. Theo even considered the Plan 9 compiler once, but dropped that idea for licensing reasons. I foresee the BSD world, including OpenBSD, moving (eventually) to clang. A compiler written in C++, with a very large codebase that takes a long time to compile and uses up all my diskspace when building itself with debug symbols doesn’t seem ideal to me—but I can’t deny how useful I’ve found clang in real‐world usage. Personally, I find libFirm/cparser an interesting lightweight compiler project, although the fact that it’s GPL is somewhat irritating.
__________________
Many thanks to the forum regulars who put time and effort into helping others solve their problems. |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
pkg_add_it - new version | DNAeon | FreeBSD Ports and Packages | 5 | 14th November 2010 01:43 AM |
Ports Version associated with FreeBSD version | rtwingfield | FreeBSD Ports and Packages | 4 | 7th June 2010 11:00 PM |
LLVM milestone reached - Clang compiler self-hosts | J65nko | News | 0 | 5th February 2010 03:48 PM |
pop3d: Maximum connection limit reached for ... | kheled | FreeBSD General | 1 | 25th June 2008 05:16 PM |
How I can have two version of zsh | mfaridi | FreeBSD Ports and Packages | 7 | 15th May 2008 05:56 PM |