On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 03:38:44AM +0200, Dag-Erling Sm??rgrav wrote: > "Shaowei Wang (wsw)" <[email protected]> writes: > > So what's the direction? Are we going to cut off all the GNU compiler > > tool chains and use the llvm/clang when it's mature. > > Who's "we"? > > Anyway, LLVM *isn't* mature, and it probably won't be for years, if > ever, so there's no point in asking. If it ever reaches a point where > it covers our needs, and it's still under an acceptable license, and > somebody sits down and does the work and assumes the responsibility, and > portsmgr@ doesn't have a conniption because it breaks half the ports > tree, and core@ approves, and a majority of developers approve, > including those who think we should run with pcc instead but can't be > arsed to do the work, then maybe. At this point, speculating about it > is just a waste of time and electrons.
I believe that the nearest action that is quite reasonable and profitable by its own merit is divorcing base compiler and compiler used to build ports. Even if this means that we would "only" have different versions of gcc.
pgp2tdWH2lXyg.pgp
Description: PGP signature
