Date: Wed, 07 Aug 1996 13:36:52 -0600 From: Warner Losh <imp@village.org> To: current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Whither gcc 2.7? Message-ID: <199608071936.NAA03803@rover.village.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed, 07 Aug 1996 20:59:17 %2B0200
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
du of config on my OpenBSD tree says it is 8229 blocks. That's with about 150 blocks of CVS directories. The config/i386 directory is 601 blocks in size. That's a savings of about 7M of sources, which is just under 3% of the source tree. As much as I'd *LOVE* to see all of that in the tree, I must admit that is starting to be large enough to be on the radar screens of people :-(. It sure is nice to be able to go to the OpenBSD tree and do a configure --target x-x-x, but I understand that it is of a more primary goal in that environment and is not a goal of FreeBSD. If it wasn't so central a part of the OS, I think it would be great if there was a "port" of gcc and not bother with including it in the core system. That would enable patches to propigate back to FSF more quickly, since they would have to be more contained. Sadly, this is not an option because you can't have an OS w/o a compiler, and gcc is currently the only compiler that is known to build all of FreeBSD. I've just seen the pain that we go through every time gcc is upgraded and would like to see the vendor supplied parts segragated out from the FreeBSD fixes. If that was the case, it would be easier to upgrade the compiler from rev to rev. I also wish FSF would get on the ball and release 2.7.2.1... They haven't done any additional work on it that I've seen in the mailing lists since we talked about this back in June... I'm not sure what to do here :-(. Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199608071936.NAA03803>