DragonFly users List (threaded) for 2011-11
Re: Is anyone still using gcc 4.1 on master?
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 12:51 PM, John Marino <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 11/7/2011 8:03 PM, Samuel J. Greear wrote:
>>> pcc is not a candidate.
>> Sorry, I disagree, although I understand if you aren't going to be the
>> one to port it.
> I don't understand that sentence. Are you saying you or somebody else is
> going to port pcc into base? A compiler that don't do c++?
Our C++ dependencies would not be that difficult to overcome and I do
not see why the system compiler should necessarily have to support
If you account for the entire history of DragonFly there have been
long periods where the compiler was not updated, and not for lack of
need but for lack of knowledge and/or manpower. _I_ feel that the best
approach for the overall long-term health of the project would be to
kill off our (very minimal) C++ dependencies and use a small, simple
and easy to reason about C compiler that most or all of the C
developers which DragonFly attracts can work on and fix. There are
numerous options for distributing/bootsrapping GCC, clang or
$othercompiler to support pkgsrc. I do not expect everyone to agree,
but I do not think the position of the project as a whole is against
someone working in support of pcc and I wanted to make sure that your
comment was not construed as being the concrete position of the