From owner-freebsd-current Sun Feb 28 17:12: 8 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from janus.syracuse.net (janus.syracuse.net [205.232.47.15]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D69D154CD for ; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 17:12:05 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from green@unixhelp.org) Received: from localhost (green@localhost) by janus.syracuse.net (8.8.8/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA21076; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 20:11:50 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 20:11:50 -0500 (EST) From: Brian Feldman X-Sender: green@janus.syracuse.net To: Peter Jeremy Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: gcc In-Reply-To: <99Mar1.112526est.40386@border.alcanet.com.au> 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 Mon, 1 Mar 1999, Peter Jeremy wrote: > Brian Feldman wrote: > [use cc1-2.7.2.1 and ECGS cc1plus] > > > we get to keep > >(for now) the stable, reliable, C compiler we've been depending on for years. > > With all the well-known idiosyncrasies that we've been working around > for years. > > > Of > >course, in the long run, once stability is proven, switching to entirely EGCS > >would make sense. > > There's a catch-22 here: We can't prove the stability of EGCS until we > start using it. Even if we don't make EGCS the base compiler, we need > a standard documented mechanism for doing `make world' with EGCS as well > as agreement that bug reports using ECGS will be considered. All gcc/cc do is act as a front-end to cc1/cc1obj/cc1plus. Hence, a second cc for egcs could be used, or maybe using a cc -egcs flag, etc. > > Peter > Brian Feldman _ __ ___ ___ ___ green@unixhelp.org _ __ ___ | _ ) __| \ http://www.freebsd.org/ _ __ ___ ____ | _ \__ \ |) | FreeBSD: The Power to Serve! _ __ ___ ____ _____ |___/___/___/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message