4 ms·

It will be interesting to see the OpenBSD project's response to this.

dchest 14y ago
Why? They use older version (under GPL2) anyway: 4.2.1 and 2.95.3.
dmm 14y ago
OpenBSD has been using their own fork of GCC since the switch to GPL3. They still use the last version on GPL2, 4.2.1. Later versions of GCC are available as packages or ports but they aren't included in the main system.
- kingmanaz 14y ago
  I wouldn't be surprised if the folks at the project abandoned their branch of gcc in order not to be "tainted by association". There is a revulsion to C++ that is close to the core to OpenBSD's philosophy. Perhaps pcc or clang will get more attention.
  - eru 14y ago
    But isn't LLVM written in C++, too?
    - kingmanaz 14y ago
      Thanks, I did not know that.
    - Ralith 14y ago
      But if GCC is now C++ as well, then it removes what may have been the motivating characteristic to use it, when clang is for many purposes an otherwise better, more freely licensed, compiler.
      - deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
  - dmm 14y ago
    The people in the OpenBSD project seem pretty happy with their toolchain. pcc was removed from the source tree due to lack of progress. Making a really good c compiler is hard and I don't think they have the people or interest at this time. I don't think they would switch to clang. LLVM is also c++.
    - kingmanaz 14y ago
      >pcc was removed from the source tree due to lack of progress. That's a shame. PCC seemed an interesting alternative to gcc, though I do recall PCC's v1.0 "revival" coinciding with an April Fools day several years ago. Perhaps it always was to be taken as a joke. OpenBSD's simplicity in implementation is laudable. The less moving parts there are the less parts there are to break. It's the same philosophy that keeps me driving my 25-year old pickup.
    - Someone 14y ago
      I am not sure they are happy. They have the C++ compiler written in C that they want, but: - they have to maintain their own gcc version (the last GPL2 one) - the licensing for clang and LLVM fits the BSDs better than the licensing for gcc. If they want to keep the ability to bootstrap from a C compiler, they should consider creating a good C backend (configurable with such things as the size of a long) for LLVM. That way, they could convert any C++ code (including clang and LLVM) to C, and thus bootstrap a C++ compiler on a system that only has a C compiler. Does anybody see problems with that approach?

Why? They use older version (under GPL2) anyway: 4.2.1 and 2.95.3.

dmm 14y ago

OpenBSD has been using their own fork of GCC since the switch to GPL3. They still use the last version on GPL2, 4.2.1. Later versions of GCC are available as packages or ports but they aren't included in the main system.

kingmanaz 14y ago
I wouldn't be surprised if the folks at the project abandoned their branch of gcc in order not to be "tainted by association". There is a revulsion to C++ that is close to the core to OpenBSD's philosophy. Perhaps pcc or clang will get more attention.
- eru 14y ago
  But isn't LLVM written in C++, too?
  - kingmanaz 14y ago
    Thanks, I did not know that.
  - Ralith 14y ago
    But if GCC is now C++ as well, then it removes what may have been the motivating characteristic to use it, when clang is for many purposes an otherwise better, more freely licensed, compiler.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
- dmm 14y ago
  The people in the OpenBSD project seem pretty happy with their toolchain. pcc was removed from the source tree due to lack of progress. Making a really good c compiler is hard and I don't think they have the people or interest at this time. I don't think they would switch to clang. LLVM is also c++.
  - kingmanaz 14y ago
    >pcc was removed from the source tree due to lack of progress. That's a shame. PCC seemed an interesting alternative to gcc, though I do recall PCC's v1.0 "revival" coinciding with an April Fools day several years ago. Perhaps it always was to be taken as a joke. OpenBSD's simplicity in implementation is laudable. The less moving parts there are the less parts there are to break. It's the same philosophy that keeps me driving my 25-year old pickup.
  - Someone 14y ago
    I am not sure they are happy. They have the C++ compiler written in C that they want, but: - they have to maintain their own gcc version (the last GPL2 one) - the licensing for clang and LLVM fits the BSDs better than the licensing for gcc. If they want to keep the ability to bootstrap from a C compiler, they should consider creating a good C backend (configurable with such things as the size of a long) for LLVM. That way, they could convert any C++ code (including clang and LLVM) to C, and thus bootstrap a C++ compiler on a system that only has a C compiler. Does anybody see problems with that approach?