From owner-freebsd-current Sun Feb 28 15:38:17 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from thelab.hub.org (nat193.154.mpoweredpc.net [142.177.193.154]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2498F15318 for ; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 15:37:30 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from scrappy@hub.org) Received: from localhost (scrappy@localhost) by thelab.hub.org (8.9.2/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA28339; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 19:36:29 -0400 (AST) (envelope-from scrappy@hub.org) X-Authentication-Warning: thelab.hub.org: scrappy owned process doing -bs Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 19:36:29 -0400 (AST) From: The Hermit Hacker To: Kenneth Wayne Culver Cc: "Jordan K. Hubbard" , Chuck Robey , "David O'Brien" , freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: gcc In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG 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