Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 11:28:04 +0100 From: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> To: "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/gnu/usr.bin/cc/cc1 Makefile src/gnu/usr.bin/cc/cc1obj Makefile src/gnu/usr.bin/cc/cc1plus Makefile Message-ID: <3CB170B4.4090607@Leidinger.net> References: <20020407162550.GE67968@sunbay.com> <20020408165120.S5876-100000@gamplex.bde.org> <20020408004154.A66483@dragon.nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
David O'Brien wrote: >>However, in the special case of the large first passes of >>cc, we (people who set NOSHARED here previously) think that clobbering >>earlier settings is right, because the space savings are small and the >>time savings are large for using NOSHARED unconditionally. > > > My reason for a static cc/cpp0/cc1 has nothing to do with speed, but > rather to allow one to recover from a bad libc.so or ld-elf.so.1. Even if I got hit by a broken ld-elf.so.1 yesterday I think your intend is questionable. A committer should be able to recover either by compiling it on another machine/OS(-version), or by getting a working version of the file(s) from a snapshot. A non committer should at least be able to get the file(s) from a snapshot or to ask someone how to resolve the issue (this is -current). So this is a bikeshed issue, and if there are no technical issues (I haven't fully looked into the files BDE refers to in the reply to your message) or they can get solved, David (the maintainer) should IMHO be the one who makes the decission (even if I think it's much easier to just copy a working version from somewhere else). Bye, Alexander. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3CB170B4.4090607>