Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 19:36:29 -0400 (AST) From: The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org> To: Kenneth Wayne Culver <culverk@wam.umd.edu> Cc: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@zippy.cdrom.com>, Chuck Robey <chuckr@mat.net>, "David O'Brien" <obrien@NUXI.com>, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: gcc Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9902281935250.59717-100000@thelab.hub.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9902281758160.406-100000@culverk.student.umd.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 28 Feb 1999, Kenneth Wayne Culver wrote:
> > A legit concern, but also realize that all of us are talking about
> > 4.0 here - the new compiler would be an issue we'd have up to a full
> > year on before the product it's in goes mainstream. If that's not enough
> > time to work out the compiler issues after switching, I can't imagine
> > when we WILL have a better time to try and do this then. Progress
> > entails some pain, and if we're unwilling to suffer any at all then
> > progress ceases entirely.
>
> This is interesting, what makes egcs better than gcc? just a dumb
> question. I agree with Jordan though: no pain no gain. :-)
For those doing, or using, C++ related projects, the current gcc is
BROKEN...egcs, with its faster development cycle (kinda like ours) tends
to be working harder on C++ spec compliance...
Marc G. Fournier
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: scrappy@hub.org secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.05.9902281935250.59717-100000>