Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 01:41:49 -0700 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@freebsd.org> To: =?unknown-8bit?Q?Bj=F6rn_K=F6nig?= <bkoenig@cs.tu-berlin.de> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [current tinderbox] failure on ...all... Message-ID: <20050613084148.GA57865@dragon.NUXI.org> In-Reply-To: <42AD3388.2010009@cs.tu-berlin.de> References: <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> <42AD3388.2010009@cs.tu-berlin.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 09:19:36AM +0200, Bjrn Knig wrote: > 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, Funny for me, I just compiled some C++ code (using catch-throw) exceptions and it ran fine. > 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. Then for you, use gcc295. But there is C++ code and C code that gcc295 won't compile. That is why I keep gcc28 around. I don't see why the existence of gcc28 is a hardship for you. I've even set NO_CDROM to not be a burden for you. It builds in 1 minute 30 seconds on my machine, so its not a burden on the package cluster either. -- -- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050613084148.GA57865>