Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 09:19:36 +0200 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Bj=F6rn_K=F6nig?= <bkoenig@cs.tu-berlin.de> To: obrien@freebsd.org Cc: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?rgrav?= <des@des.no> Subject: Re: [current tinderbox] failure on ...all... Message-ID: <42AD3388.2010009@cs.tu-berlin.de> In-Reply-To: <20050613065618.GA30092@dragon.NUXI.org> References: <20050609234619.AD1F67306E@freebsd-current.sentex.ca> <p0621025fbeceac0673f8@128.113.24.47> <84dead720506091950779d1661@mail.gmail.com> <86oeae3d8f.fsf@xps.des.no> <20050610071828.GB78035@ip.net.ua> <867jh23bwh.fsf@xps.des.no> <20050610074706.GE78035@ip.net.ua> <20050612022105.GB67746@dragon.NUXI.org> <20050612042406.GB5996@soaustin.net> <20050613065618.GA30092@dragon.NUXI.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
David O'Brien wrote: > I could say that about tons of other ports. The gcc28 port works fine, > and I don't see what is wrong with the patch I supplied. gcc28 is still > the fastest compiler (in terms of compiler speed) we have on FreeBSD. It > is still useful. For what is it useful? It can't compile C++ code, it has a lack of standard conformance, gcc295 isn't quite worse and the utility ccache is a good choice you if you need fast recompilation. Björn
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?42AD3388.2010009>