Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 18:23:49 +1000 From: Peter Jeremy <peter.jeremy@alcatel.com.au> To: Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai <asmodai@wxs.nl> Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Plans to change our debugging format to DWARF2 Message-ID: <00Jun21.062526est.115228@border.alcanet.com.au> In-Reply-To: <20000608091507.E1587@daemon.ninth-circle.org>; from asmodai@wxs.nl on Thu, Jun 08, 2000 at 05:19:31PM %2B1000 References: <20000606124116.A16993@cons.org> <20000606080031.F78380@dragon.nuxi.com> <20000608091507.E1587@daemon.ninth-circle.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Jun 08, 2000 at 05:19:31PM +1000, Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai wrote: >I'd say go for it. But of course we want to MFC this to 4.x as well >some point in the future. Along with all the other compiler changes. Why? This strikes me as a major change to a critical part of the system - well beyond what I would expect to see in -stable. Somewhat over a year ago (from memory) there was an extended debate about upgrading from gcc2.7.2.2 to gcc2.8.1 or ECGS. At that time there was substantial resistance to the change - on the basis that the behaviour of gcc2.7.2.2 was well understood. Whilst ECGS (and later gcc2.95) were merged into 4-current, it was never MFC'd back to 3.x. If the recent changes to gcc and binutils were merged back into -stable, there would seem to be seem to be a high probability that -stable would break. Peter To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?00Jun21.062526est.115228>