From owner-freebsd-current Wed Apr 7 17:51: 6 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from wall.polstra.com (rtrwan160.accessone.com [206.213.115.74]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40F7F15835 for ; Wed, 7 Apr 1999 17:51:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jdp@polstra.com) Received: from vashon.polstra.com (vashon.polstra.com [206.213.73.13]) by wall.polstra.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA09352; Wed, 7 Apr 1999 17:49:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jdp@polstra.com) From: John Polstra Received: (from jdp@localhost) by vashon.polstra.com (8.9.2/8.9.1) id RAA76863; Wed, 7 Apr 1999 17:49:04 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jdp@polstra.com) Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 17:49:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199904080049.RAA76863@vashon.polstra.com> To: asmodai@wxs.nl Subject: Re: /sys/boot, egcs vs. gcc, -Os In-Reply-To: Organization: Polstra & Co., Seattle, WA Cc: current@freebsd.org Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In article , Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai wrote: > This raises an interesting point I think. Do we need to maintain > gcc/egcs compatibility? Or do we, since we track CURRENT, say: > "alas, that's progression for ye?" Yep, alas, that's progression for ye. We have never supported mix & match of sourceballs from different releases. We do our best to support running old executables on newer systems, but that's a completely different issue. > Has there been an `official' consensus reached about this from core or > commiters? I am only speaking for John Polstra, a compiler guy, here. -- John Polstra jdp@polstra.com John D. Polstra & Co., Inc. Seattle, Washington USA "Self-interest is the aphrodisiac of belief." -- James V. DeLong To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message