From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Apr 10 00:16:39 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id AAA05836 for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 00:16:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from palmer.demon.co.uk (palmer.demon.co.uk [158.152.50.150]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id AAA05830 for ; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 00:16:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by palmer.demon.co.uk (sendmail/PALMER-1) with SMTP id IAA10785 ; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 08:10:41 +0100 (BST) To: Michael Smith cc: jmacd@CS.Berkeley.EDU (Josh MacDonald), imp@village.org, witr@rwwa.com, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG From: "Gary Palmer" Subject: Re: GNU binutils port In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 10 Apr 1996 16:36:00 +0930." <199604100706.QAA22095@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au> Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 08:10:41 +0100 Message-ID: <10783.829120241@palmer.demon.co.uk> Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Michael Smith wrote in message ID <199604100706.QAA22095@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au>: > Josh MacDonald stands accused of saying: > > Its getting ridiculous, considering how easy it is to import > > the tree. NetBSD has it running, why, may I ask, is the 2.2 > > tree not tracking gcc-2.7? > Because last time people tried (2.7.2 IIRC), it failed to correctly compile > the kernel, the X servers, and a few other things people threw at it. I seem to remember this is because of small changes in the way GCC specific stuff is handled, and there is TONS of that scattered throughout our tree, and no-one who has the knowledge of how to fix this has the time. I also think the general opinion was ``wait until they bring out a release which has fewer problems than most of the 2.7.x series (to date) had, or we'll just be causing problems for ourselves''. Gary