From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Dec 24 09:25:49 1995 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id JAA09239 for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 24 Dec 1995 09:25:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from chemserv.umd.edu (chemserv.umd.edu [129.2.64.40]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id JAA09232 for ; Sun, 24 Dec 1995 09:25:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from latte.eng.umd.edu (latte.eng.umd.edu [129.2.98.15]) by chemserv.umd.edu (8.7.3/8.7) with ESMTP id MAA16146; Sun, 24 Dec 1995 12:25:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (chuckr@localhost) by latte.eng.umd.edu (8.7.3/8.6.4) id MAA01991; Sun, 24 Dec 1995 12:25:37 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 1995 12:25:37 -0500 (EST) From: Chuck Robey X-Sender: chuckr@latte.eng.umd.edu To: Josh MacDonald cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: gcc 2.7.1 In-Reply-To: <199512232016.MAA20992@paris.CS.Berkeley.EDU> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Sat, 23 Dec 1995, Josh MacDonald wrote: > libg++ compiles. I can't build shared libraries. the ld man page says > we have a -Ur flag like the current GNU linker but its not really supported. > I wonder how that happened. I'm not sure I understand; you can't build shared libs? That sounds like I didn't see enough context, because building shared libs isn't a trick at all. I think you know this, so I'm confused by the remark, I must have missed something. > > I don't think its too big a deal now, I have it working, but I think that > it gives a bad name to FreeBSD, that new versions of gcc which come out > are not least ported in reasonable time. For someone developing c++ > applications its a big deal. > > So I ask, what prevents gcc 2.7.x from being imported into the source tree? > I know of no bugs which it has that 2.6.3 didn't. You brought this up before, when 2.7.1 first came out. I thought the answer then was that there were definite code generation bugs with 2.7.1. FreeBSD has _never_ tried to follow GNU gcc releases, the important thing being that the tree compiles well, not chasing GNU. I just saw a reference to a fix for one of the code generation bugs, a patch, show up on the list. I'll bet gcc gets upgraded in the next year, but there's no rush. You can port gcc yourself (others have, they're reported results to this list) if you really need it. I'm a little curious; here at U of Maryland, they're no quicker to upgrade their local gcc ports than FreeBSD is, so all the student code has to compile under 2.6.3. Is Berkeley quicker on that? If not, how is 2.7.2 going to help you? > > -josh > ============================================================================ Chuck Robey chuckr@eng.umd.edu -- I run FreeBSD on n3lxx and Journey2 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Dilbert Zone is Dilbert's new WWW home! The area features never-before-seen original sketches of Dilbert, a photo tour of Scott Adams' studio, Dilbert Trivia and memorabilia, high school photos and much more!: