Date: Sat, 10 Aug 1996 16:41:25 +0200 (MET DST) From: Andreas Klemm <andreas@klemm.gtn.com> To: Michael Hancock <michaelh@cet.co.jp> Cc: "Brian N. Handy" <handy@sag.space.lockheed.com>, Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com>, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Whither gcc 2.7? Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.3.95.960810163840.446B-100000@klemm.gtn.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.SV4.3.93.960808142325.11801C-100000@parkplace.cet.co.jp>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 8 Aug 1996, Michael Hancock wrote: > On Wed, 7 Aug 1996, Brian N. Handy wrote: > > > I guess another thing I wonder about...has anyone thought about the future > > plans of tracking gcc? We've been running 2.6.3 for a loong time, are we > > going to move to 2.7.# and stay with it or is FreeBSD going to start > > tracking gcc more closely? > > Since we're using gcc to compile the kernel we need to identify stable > releases of gcc and stick with it for a while. > > Closely tracking and incorporating all gcc releases (including unstable > releases) is not a high priority. Would it be a good compromise with respect to kernel stability, to call the old stable cc 'cc' and the new 2.7.2.x one 'gcc' ?! Everybody could choose between cc and gcc via /etc/make.conf. So we should perhaps add a contrib section with a bmaked contrib/gcc, so that the stable cc could stay where he is ?! andreas@klemm.gtn.com /\/\___ Wiechers & Partner Datentechnik GmbH Andreas Klemm ___/\/\/ Support Unix -- andreas.klemm@wup.de pgp p-key http://www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/~bal/pks-toplev.html >>> powered by <<< ftp://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/Linux/system/Printing/aps-491.tgz >>> FreeBSD <<<
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSI.3.95.960810163840.446B-100000>