From owner-freebsd-current Sun Feb 28 9: 9: 5 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from spinner.netplex.com.au (spinner.netplex.com.au [202.12.86.3]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 418E315268 for ; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 09:08:31 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from peter@netplex.com.au) Received: from spinner.netplex.com.au (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spinner.netplex.com.au (8.9.2/8.9.2/Netplex) with ESMTP id BAA63212; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 01:07:46 +0800 (WST) (envelope-from peter@spinner.netplex.com.au) Message-Id: <199902281707.BAA63212@spinner.netplex.com.au> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 2/24/98 To: Warner Losh Cc: "Jordan K. Hubbard" , Chuck Robey , freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: gcc In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 28 Feb 1999 09:48:35 MST." <199902281648.JAA80190@harmony.village.org> Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 01:07:46 +0800 From: Peter Wemm Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Warner Losh wrote: > In message <20655.920182749@zippy.cdrom.com> "Jordan K. Hubbard" writes: > : > I for one would love to see 2.8.1 or newer in the tree for my own, > : > selfish reasons. Many ports (new architectures) would benefit from > : > this. > : > : Is that to say that you prefer it over egcs 1.1.1? If so, why? > > No. I'd love to see 2.8.1 or newer. egcs 1.1.1 is newer. I'd prefer > egcs, for a variety of reasons... > > Warner A fair bit of work as been done on getting our stuff and egcs 1.1.1 merged and into shape. I see egcs 1.1.2 appears to be on the horizon, that won't be much problem when it arrives as I expect it's pretty close to the 1.1.1 layout. The main holdups have been getting the native egcs build to do something more sensible with regards to -aout/-elf, and, if things work out, a bit better cross-compile support. (Note, the cross compile stuff doesn't work too happily with the existing bmake glue and hacks in the code.) I think I've got the threaded vs setjump/longjump exception stuff sorted out and runtime switchable based on -thread etc. I suspect libg++ is approaching "delete" material. libstdc++ comes with egcs, and a hacked up libg++ is floating around that we can probably use, but I wonder if it's time to loose it and keep just libstdc++. libg++ on it's own isn't all that useful, and would probably be better as a port for the few (if any) things that actually uses it's (non-standard) class libraries. Cheers, -Peter To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message