Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 16:39:21 +0100 From: j mckitrick <jcm@FreeBSD-uk.eu.org> To: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cygnus compiler? Message-ID: <20010703163921.B39318@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> In-Reply-To: <20010703172715.W40756@lpt.ens.fr>; from rsidd@physics.iisc.ernet.in on Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 05:27:15PM %2B0200 References: <20010703144315.A37456@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> <20010703172715.W40756@lpt.ens.fr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 05:27:15PM +0200, Rahul Siddharthan wrote: | > I saw a note that RH Linux aquired the Cygnus compiler. What is the deal | > with this? How is it different/better/worse than gcc? | | How about posting URLs? The article had nothing else to say on this, and I thought it was public knowledge anyway. | FWIW, Red Hat acquired Cygnus, compiler and all, quite a while ago Ah, that's what I thought. | also included a "non-official" gcc (called gcc-2.96-RH or some such | thing) with their 7.0 and 7.1 releases, because gcc-2.95.x wasn't good | enough (particularly for C++) and gcc-3.0 wasn't ready. Maybe that's | what you're thinking of. gcc-3.0 has now been released, and though | Red Hat got a lot of flak (even from the gcc developers) for "jumping | the gun", it is possible that the additional feedback helped gcc3 get | finished faster. Okay, I wasn't sure if the Cygnus compiler was a different version of gcc (code forking), and advance release version (evidently), or something altogether different. Jonathon -- Microsoft complaining about the source license used by Linux is like the event horizon calling the kettle black. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010703163921.B39318>