Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
BSD

FreeBSD Removes GCC From Default Base System 333

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the autoconf-revival dept.
An anonymous reader writes "With the LLVM/Clang migration, FreeBSD developers have now disabled building GCC and the GNU C++ standard library (libstdc++) as part of the FreeBSD base system. GCC and libstdc++ have been superseded by LLVM's Clang and libc++, respectively, on primary architectures for FreeBSD 10.0." You can still flip a few switches to get GCC, but the system compiler will still be clang. Update: 09/11 14:50 GMT by U L : Reader Noryungi noted that the What's Cooking for FreeBSD 10 page is also worth a look, adding "I have to say, this is shaping up to be a very interesting release. Bhyve [the BSD hypervisor], in particular, sounds very promising."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FreeBSD Removes GCC From Default Base System

Comments Filter:
  • by PSVMOrnot (885854) on Wednesday September 11, 2013 @10:42AM (#44819053)

    "the system compiler will still be clang"

    Or the Onionequse version: FreeBSD's move to revolutionary new swording system [subutai.mn] adds a whole new meaning to compiling [xkcd.com]

  • by Noryungi (70322) on Wednesday September 11, 2013 @10:45AM (#44819087) Homepage Journal

    Try this one: https://wiki.freebsd.org/WhatsNew/FreeBSD10 [freebsd.org]

    I have to say, this is shaping up to be a very interesting release. Bhyve, in particular, sounds very promising...

    • by MatthiasF (1853064) on Wednesday September 11, 2013 @11:29AM (#44819621)
      I think the updates to ZFS are more impressive. The addition of LZ4 compression (50-80% faster), SSD TRIM support and the new NOP-write that reduces the need to write to compressed disks will all mean commodity hardware SANs running FreeBSD will be able to give the big boys a run for their money.

      So, better compression, SSD speed-up and less need to write to changed files, means there will be a huge performance increase.
      • Can we take drives out yet? ZFS makes it nice and easy to just add a new drive to a storage pool, but taking one out (ie, freeing up port for a larger drive, or turning your 16x1TB drives into 8x2TB drives to reduce the frequency of failures) is a different matter.

        • by Bengie (1121981)
          Not yet, that requires pointer re-writes, which has been talked about for a long time by the ZFS devs.

          Essentially, ZFS does not currently allow data to be moved once written. Supports Delete and Insert, but no Update. A big reason for this is if you move the data, you need to update all points that address that data, and to do so in an atomic way that doesn't leave the system in an unstable state.
        • I do not think there is a safe way to do that in regards to any storage array system, besides setting up the two arrays in parallel and copying the data.

          ZFS will allow you to migrate up to larger drives, but I believe it has to be the same number of drives and it is still fairly risky (requiring you to degrade the array for a rather lengthy period).

          Here's a blog explaining some.

          https://www.dan.me.uk/blog/2012/11/14/increase-capacity-of-freebsd-zfs-array-by-replacing-disks/ [dan.me.uk]

          I think you can also u
    • With all due respect to your low /. id#, why do you say that? A type 2 hypervisor - are there no good type 2 hv offerings on BSD today? Are there specific production uses for FreeBSD that you think have been forestalled to date, that this opens up? Or is there something about bhyve that sets it apart from the existing options?
  • by bill_mcgonigle (4333) * on Wednesday September 11, 2013 @11:10AM (#44819383) Homepage Journal

    I don't think I've seen Ken Thompson's Reflections on Trusting Trust come up more in the past decade than it has in the past week. Right now seems like a particularly inauspicious time to switch to a one-compiler-to-rule-them-all strategy.

    I'm particularly interested in trying to build the gcc phase-1 bootstrap compiler with llvm to see how that works out (TODO list...).

    • by phoenix_rizzen (256998) on Wednesday September 11, 2013 @11:51AM (#44819843)

      FreeBSD (and Linux) were already in a "one compiler to rule them all" situation, aka GCC. At least with FreeBSD 9 there were two compilers in the base install (GCC, LLVM), and you have the option of keeping GCC in 10 if you really want.

      IOW, you're complaint is baseless and backwards.

      • by steelfood (895457)

        If the theoretical exploit isn't at the hardware level, one way to discover a compromised compiler would be to compile the same code with multiple compilers, and then compare their outputs. Having multiple compilers for one platform is a good thing.

      • You will have the option of using GCC, its in the packages system and you can easily install it. Clang is now the default, but of course GCC can still be used if you wish.

      • At least with FreeBSD 9 there were two compilers in the base install (GCC, LLVM), and you have the option of keeping GCC in 10 if you really want.

        Right, FreeBSD 9 was doing it the best way, and now FreeBSD 10 is doing it a worse way.

        IOW, you're complaint is baseless and backwards.

        If my complaint is "removing additional compilers from the base install will discourage their use", please describe how the complaint is baseless. Do you feel that having multiple compilers per platform is not an advantage for th

  • Is it not?

    In the long run this is really going to suck for the Sony engineers, maintaining a fork with a different system compiler.

    • by kthreadd (1558445)

      FreeBSD 10 has been using Clang as the system compiler for a long time already. This was just the removal of gcc, nothing else.

    • Doesn't matter, it'll just be yanked out a few months in anyway. ;)

  • FreeBSD/amd64
    FreeBSD/ARM
    FreeBSD/i386
    FreeBSD/ia64
    FreeBSD/MIPS
    FreeBSD/pc98
    FreeBSD/ppc
    FreeBSD/sparc64
    FreeBSD/xbox

    I guess they dropped 68k...
  • by Eravnrekaree (467752) on Wednesday September 11, 2013 @02:30PM (#44821539)

    Since the FreeBSD Kernel is BSD licensed, it only makes sense to have the entire base toolchain BSD licensed as well. This is a big step in that direction. There is also a broader project to create BSD licensed versions of all of the core Unix utilities as well. Hopefully we will see this happen soon.

  • now if we could only move Fotran too.

Information is the inverse of entropy.

Working...