From owner-freebsd-arch Tue Jun 20 13:25:57 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from alcanet.com.au (mail.alcanet.com.au [203.62.196.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC6F737C0D9 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 13:25:50 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jeremyp@pc0640.alcatel.com.au) Received: by border.alcanet.com.au id <115228>; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 06:25:26 +1000 Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 18:23:49 +1000 From: Peter Jeremy Subject: Re: Plans to change our debugging format to DWARF2 In-reply-to: <20000608091507.E1587@daemon.ninth-circle.org>; from asmodai@wxs.nl on Thu, Jun 08, 2000 at 05:19:31PM +1000 To: Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG Message-Id: <00Jun21.062526est.115228@border.alcanet.com.au> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii References: <20000606124116.A16993@cons.org> <20000606080031.F78380@dragon.nuxi.com> <20000608091507.E1587@daemon.ninth-circle.org> Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG 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