I disagree on the points about the sun studio compilers. I've seen better binary and optimization results with sun studio than with GCC. I've worked with GCC on other platforms, Power and Alpha.. and needless to say it's a dog. All the development on GCC is really focused on x86 and most optimizations for other platforms come from the vendors. Sun Studio on the other hand has a great tool set and the fact that it is free should make the idea of using GCC dead in my opinion. If anything, just more work around dealing with GCC-isms would help compile and build FOSS apps. However, the bigger issue on that front is that many of those FOSS apps are starting to loose site of the UNIX philosophy of being easily portable between platforms. So even if you use GCC, it may not work.
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Octave J. Orgeron Solaris Virtualization Architect and Consultant Web: http://unixconsole.blogspot.com E-Mail: unixconsole at yahoo.com *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* ----- Original Message ---- From: Martin Bochnig <mar...@martux.org> To: Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams at sun.com> Cc: xwin-discuss at opensolaris.org; Alan Coopersmith <Alan.Coopersmith at sun.com>; Bart Smaalders <Bart.Smaalders at sun.com>; LSARC-ext at sun.com; PSARC-ext at sun.com Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2009 8:32:58 PM Subject: Re: Consolidations (Re: [xwin-discuss] Obsolescence of /usr/X11) On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 3:18 AM, Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams at sun.com> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 01:52:25AM +0300, Martin Bochnig wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 1:38 AM, Bart Smaalders <bart.smaalders at sun.com> >> wrote: >> > No. Each consolidation has different build infrastructure and >> > procedures; >> >> Yes, exactly. >> Is this a necessity? > > No, but it's almost certainly how it would end up happening no matter > what. > >> Wouldnt it be cheaper if all used the same? > > Not really. Different consolidations have different needs and may work > very differently from others. Consider Source Jucr (not a > consolidation, yet, but it's very much like a consolidation): database- > and spec file- driven, with a web front-end. That's completely > different from ON. Making Jucr adhere to ON's build style would defeat > Jucr's purpose. But ON has no use for Jucr's database- and spec > file-driven scheme. SFW follows the ON model, with various resulting > quirks (you can't really split FOSS builds into "commands", "libraries", > etcetera -- but SFW forces you to sort FOSS into "commands", > "libraries", and so on). SFW could be converted to Jucr, someday. Java > probably has a very different build system. Imagine making Java, which > is multi-platform, have an ON-style build system (ON only builds on > Solaris)! And so on, and on. > >> That was what I objected to. I am just not 100% sure and I wanted to >> bring this question onto the table to see your responses. Only for >> consideration. > > Your objection isn't about architecture though. > > Nico Objection may have been the wrong word. (lost in translation ...) As I said: It was a question. And as for the limitations you mentioned: Thanks for this detailed summary. Although: Different needs could also be addressed by a single system (with corresponding case handling). And specifically: > is multi-platform, have an ON-style build system (ON only builds on > Solaris)! And so on, and on. If you would drop Studio and would globally switch to gcc, you would not only save lots of R&D, but additionally you could relatively easily support cross-compilation (x86/SPARC, also on LinUX etc ... ). But this is another situation again, where Sun spends extra money for ending up in less flexibility. So actually you pay twice. Note: This is not a rant by any means. Just a bit of wondering and a few thoughts attempted to express. %martin _______________________________________________ opensolaris-arc mailing list opensolaris-arc at opensolaris.org
