From owner-freebsd-current Tue Dec 16 20:05:48 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA03731 for current-outgoing; Tue, 16 Dec 1997 20:05:48 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current) Received: from internet1.mel.cybec.com.au (internet1.mel.cybec.com.au [203.103.154.130]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA03722 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 1997 20:05:35 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from TLiddelow@cybec.com.au) Received: from cybec.com.au (tech34.mel.cybec.com.au [203.103.154.37]) by internet1.mel.cybec.com.au (post.office MTA v2.0 0813 ID# 0-14031) with ESMTP id AAA461; Wed, 17 Dec 1997 15:07:03 +1100 Message-ID: <34974F93.7D7BF3C3@cybec.com.au> Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 15:05:39 +1100 From: TLiddelow@cybec.com.au (Tim Liddelow) Organization: Cybec Pty Ltd X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (WinNT; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alex CC: current Subject: Re: Pentium optimizations References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Alex wrote: > > I've been lurking on the egcs list, and a few Linux/x86ites have been > tossing around various Pentium or K6 enhanced functions (strlen and memcpy > come to mind). I was wondering what the chance of this actually being > merged into the -current cc? I was hopin we could get some Pentium > optimizations without having to use the (as of now) fairly incompatable > egcs. Or maybe get some of the dynamic library gunk merged into egcs. > > - alex I'd love to see egcs as a package for both -current and also -stable... anyone interested in doing it? I would do it if I had the time... (I know, you've heard that before). I'm not really familiar with the grokery/hackery that has been involved in merging gcc into the FreeBSD tree anyway. When gcc changes, how are these changes munged into FreeBSD's gcc ? (Not that gcc has changed much over the last eon!). I wonder if anyone has ever thought about "unbundling" cc(1) like some of the commercial unixen do...and just making it a package...then you could select the cc you wanted from sysinstall... for example, developers may select egcs, standard users may select gcc, other users may select pgcc, others a simple C compiler. Some users won't ever use C++, so why should they get the extra bloat of g++ ? Of course, this "unbundling" isn't really unbundling, because you can simply pick the compiler you want. It also means 3rd party vendors may be more inclined to provide a compiler one day. Just some thoughts. Tim. & waits for flames on unbundling & -- ==================================================================== Tim Liddelow * Internet Consulting Internet Project Manager * * Cybec Pty Ltd * Anti Virus/Firewalls/Security Phone: +61 3 9825 5645 C++/UNIX/WIN32/OOP/OOD/WWW mailto:TLiddelow@cybec.com.au * http://www.vet.com.au/ =====================================================================