|
|||
OpenBSD −= groff
schwarze@ has been making some strides in removing groff(1) from the OpenBSD tree, and it is likely to be cut out this week. The ports tree is ready for the switch.
Mandoc has been compiling most OpenBSD base system manpages for a few months now. It provides several advantages over groff:
What’s more, this will make things better for actual roff users. groff will be moving to the ports tree, and it’ll be a newer version—1.20, instead of the ancient 1.15 currently in base (that has some irritating formatting quirks). Other BSDs are on track to move to mandoc as well. Kristaps Dzonsons has certainly done a great service by providing us with this software.
__________________
Many thanks to the forum regulars who put time and effort into helping others solve their problems. |
|
||||
This is joyous news! Groff represents both a sizible and important bit of work, I respect that. Certainly beats having to use info foo all day...but it is really nice to see an alternative to that tub of lard.
Last time I looked through FreeBSDs source tree for such things, groff amounted to the vast majority of C++ code to be found. I would still want to use groff for working with troff documents outside the man/mdoc family, but the most exposure anyone gets to *roff these days is man foo; everyone else can't complain too much if the need an extra package for more than that, can they? :-) If this someday speeds up the buildworld times on FreeBSD, as well as making OpenBSD even leaner & meaner, I will be one happy spider :-D
__________________
My Journal Thou shalt check the array bounds of all strings (indeed, all arrays), for surely where thou typest ``foo'' someone someday shall type ``supercalifragilisticexpialidocious''. |
|
||||
Quote:
Finally moving Groff to ports will finally allow the updated to version 1.20 for serious Groff users. |
|
||||
I've been looking forward to PCC for licensing reasons (and a general dislike of GCC), but I didn't realize PCC produced faster binaries faster than GCC could...that's welcome news indeed. Do you have a link to benchmarks or is this personal experience?
|
|
||||
Quote:
Bare in mind that PCC is still its infancy (I mean after recent rebirth). The work on optimization has not even started but even with the default options it produces faster binaries than GCC. Now I do not know about the progress of AerieBSD guys on binutils but that is really the last peace of the tool chain which is GNU provided. |
|
|||
Quote:
|
|
|||
I'm not aware of any benchmarks comparing GCC and PCC, but PCC does seem to compile 90% of the stuff I've thrown at it considerably faster.. the speed of the resulting executables is hard to compare accurately.
PCC as a compiler is smaller and arguably easier to understand (..source wise) than GCC, which is great considering it is also compatible with the compiler. |
|
||||
Quote:
GCC: 142 MB, uncompressed 1391 C source files 911 C header files PCC: 7.3 MB, uncompressed 97 C source files 40 C header files |
|
|