From owner-freebsd-current Tue Dec 16 22:02:36 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA13367 for current-outgoing; Tue, 16 Dec 1997 22:02:36 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current) Received: from taliesin.cs.ucla.edu (Taliesin.CS.UCLA.EDU [131.179.96.166]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id WAA13362 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 1997 22:02:29 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from scottm@mordred.cs.ucla.edu) Received: (qmail 9223 invoked from network); 17 Dec 1997 06:02:19 -0000 Received: from mordred.cs.ucla.edu (131.179.48.34) by taliesin.cs.ucla.edu with SMTP; 17 Dec 1997 06:02:19 -0000 Received: from mordred (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mordred.cs.ucla.edu (8.8.8/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA00650; Tue, 16 Dec 1997 22:02:26 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from scottm@mordred.cs.ucla.edu) Message-Id: <199712170602.WAA00650@mordred.cs.ucla.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0zeta 7/24/97 To: TLiddelow@cybec.com.au (Tim Liddelow) cc: current Subject: Re: Pentium optimizations In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 17 Dec 1997 15:05:39 +1100." <34974F93.7D7BF3C3@cybec.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 22:02:26 -0800 From: Scott Michel Sender: owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk I'd love to see that package maintainer's sanity, as egcs is a quickly moving target. Not for the faint of heart. -scooter > 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/ > =====================================================================