Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 22 Nov 2002 13:04:40 +0100
From:      Marc Recht <marc@informatik.uni-bremen.de>
To:        Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com>, Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu>
Cc:        Harald Arnesen <harald@skogtun.org>, David Schultz <dschultz@uclink.Berkeley.EDU>, David O'Brien <obrien@FreeBSD.ORG>, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: gcc 3.2.1 release import?
Message-ID:  <23160000.1037966680@leeloo.intern.geht.de>
In-Reply-To: <3DDE1711.6B9606B4@mindspring.com>
References:  <55350000.1037811461@leeloo.intern.geht.de> <20021121041449.GA17530@dragon.nuxi.com> <20021121214614.GA6062@HAL9000.homeunix.com> <87bs4iczjd.fsf@basilikum.skogtun.org> <87590000.1037924015@leeloo.intern.geht.de> <3DDD7F10.BFED05F7@mindspring.com> <120820000.1037929067@leeloo.intern.geht.de> <3DDDCD32.6D74D775@mindspring.com> <20021122064625.GA12620@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <3DDE1711.6B9606B4@mindspring.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> What does it do for all the other code in -ports, and in the
> comp.source.* archives, and that anyone else has ever written,
> such that you know it doesn't cause more problems than it
> solves?
I don't think that the system cc is supposed to compile all code ever 
written. IMHO It should compile the system (and the port versions of gcc) - 
not more not less.

> Supposedly, bringing in 3.2 was going to solve more problems
> than it caused.  It turns out the 4.x compiler, GCC 2.95.3,
> also does not have an ICE as a result of compiling that code.
The problem with the ports is mostly badly written C++ code. Since most 
(all?) Linux distributions are using gcc 3.2.x by now I'm quite sure it 
will be fixed over the time..

> When you are updating tools, it's actually about risk/reward;
> the risk of not supporting IA64, and the risk of the object
> file compatability has (supposedly) be addressed.
The question is, how big is the Step from a Nov. pre-release to the release 
version of gcc 3.2.1.

> The only other reasonable path would be to tie FreeBSD releases
> to GCC releases, plus some period of time for burn-in, and that
> really isn't reasonable: 3.3 was supposed to be out already;
> should FreeBSD's release schedule slip every time GGC's slips?
IMHO it would be a big mistake to tie FreeBSD releases to GCC releases. And 
going for the latest and greatest isn't an option, too. This time it could 
just "fit".

I'm wondering if I should mention the new binutils.. :)

Marc


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?23160000.1037966680>