Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 10:42:25 -0800 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.ORG> To: Alexander Kabaev <ak03@gte.com> Cc: jstocker@tzi.de, mb@imp.ch, tlambert2@mindspring.com, imp@village.org, edhall@weirdnoise.com, kris@obsecurity.org, current@FreeBSD.ORG, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, edhall@screech.weirdnoise.com Subject: Re: gcc -O broken in CURRENT Message-ID: <20020314104225.B67703@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <20020314132051.7f17a55b.ak03@gte.com>; from ak03@gte.com on Thu, Mar 14, 2002 at 01:20:51PM -0500 References: <20020314112547.55cc5786.ak03@gte.com> <000601c1cb7e$b82c18a0$fe02010a@twoflower.liebende.de> <20020314132051.7f17a55b.ak03@gte.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Mar 14, 2002 at 01:20:51PM -0500, Alexander Kabaev wrote: > > b) other options were set at compile time > > --> Why dont change to the same in the port? > > Leads it to a broken world? > > If the only difference is the lost of binary compatibility, > > i would say, ok... do it now and we'll need to compile > > or ports... > Pretty much each and every C++ binary and shared library will have to be > recompiled. Massive binary compatibility breakage is not an option for > -STABLE, one can hope. No it is not an option for -STABLE. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020314104225.B67703>