Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 12:31:01 +0100 From: German Tischler <tanis@gaspode.franken.de> To: Doug Rabson <dfr@nlsystems.com> Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: gcc Message-ID: <19990228123101.A5311@gaspode.franken.de> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9902280931360.47102-100000@herring.nlsystems.com>; from Doug Rabson on Sun, Feb 28, 1999 at 09:32:51AM %2B0000 References: <20655.920182749@zippy.cdrom.com> <Pine.BSF.4.05.9902280931360.47102-100000@herring.nlsystems.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Feb 28, 1999 at 09:32:51AM +0000, Doug Rabson wrote: > On Sat, 27 Feb 1999, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote: > > > > I for one would love to see 2.8.1 or newer in the tree for my own, > > > selfish reasons. Many ports (new architectures) would benefit from > > > this. > > > > Is that to say that you prefer it over egcs 1.1.1? If so, why? > > I have found egcs to be slightly better at C++ code (for my own projects > anyway). I believe that it may produce better code too but I don't have > any real evidence. egcs is much closer to ISO-14882 (ISO C++), that was finished AFTER gcc2.8.1 was released. So if one wants to do standard conform C++ programing, egcs is the choice at the time being. (though it also doens't implement all features of the standard yet). -- German Tischler tanis@gaspode.franken.de Apple eaten (core dumped) tanis@cip.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de 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?19990228123101.A5311>