| |||||||||||||
GNU sed 4.2.2 released; maintainer resignsGNU sed 4.2.2 released; maintainer resignsPosted Dec 23, 2012 7:49 UTC (Sun) by lu_zero (guest, #72556)In reply to: GNU sed 4.2.2 released; maintainer resigns by HelloWorld Parent article: GNU sed 4.2.2 released; maintainer resigns
The switch to C++ will make me move to clang since then GCC would not have any practical advantage in bootstrapping new systems.
(Log in to post comments)
GNU sed 4.2.2 released; maintainer resigns Posted Dec 23, 2012 15:23 UTC (Sun) by stevenb (guest, #11536) [Link]
Right, because bootstrapping is something most of us do every day. Twice.
Oh, wait...
GNU sed 4.2.2 released; maintainer resigns Posted Dec 23, 2012 22:35 UTC (Sun) by lu_zero (guest, #72556) [Link]
Some do that as part of their job...
GNU sed 4.2.2 released; maintainer resigns Posted Dec 24, 2012 18:05 UTC (Mon) by heijo (guest, #88363) [Link]
Ever heard of cross compilation?
This idea that you need to support bad compiler is bullshit, just use your x86-64 g++ to compile an x86-64 to $bootstrap g++, then use the latter to compile a native $bootstrap g++.
GNU sed 4.2.2 released; maintainer resigns Posted Dec 26, 2012 10:49 UTC (Wed) by CopperWing (guest, #82856) [Link]
The GCC switch to C++ changes completely nothing in terms of system bootstrap. Zero lines of code must be changed anywhere because of that.
GNU sed 4.2.2 released; maintainer resigns Posted Dec 26, 2012 10:40 UTC (Wed) by CopperWing (guest, #82856) [Link]
So you leave GCC because of its switch to C++, to embrace llvm and clang which are completely written in C++ as well? Does not make sense at all.
GNU sed 4.2.2 released; maintainer resigns Posted Dec 26, 2012 12:11 UTC (Wed) by lu_zero (guest, #72556) [Link]
You use the tool that works better, bootstrapping a system clang isn't exactly impossible (see FreeBSD) yet has some pitfalls. Bootstrapping gcc as system compiler and libstdc++ is/was more straightforward.
GNU sed 4.2.2 released; maintainer resigns Posted Dec 26, 2012 13:40 UTC (Wed) by CopperWing (guest, #82856) [Link]
I was not complaining about your choice, just found quite contradictory the reason you gave for it.
I build quite often the arm-linux-gnueabi GCC cross-compiler and a Linux root file system for my work, and after the switch to C++ I didn't find any issue in doing that. It's neither more nor less straightforward than before, just the same.
Conversely if you plan to rebuild the Linux kernel with llvm/clang, be prepared to get some headaches. Last time I checked, some components still needed to be recompiled with GCC and the resulting kernel was not at all stable.
So, for real work on Linux, GCC is still the only choice. Until someone volunteers to improve the situation (FreeBSD with clang didn't came exactly for free).
|
|||||||||||||