Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 18:38:39 -0800 (PST) From: "Pedro F. Giffuni" <giffunip@tutopia.com> To: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com>, bf2006a@yahoo.com Cc: Sean Cavanaugh <Millenia2000@hotmail.com>, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Alternatives to gcc (was Re: gcc 4.3: when will it becomestandard compiler?) Message-ID: <52572.84275.qm@web32708.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--- On Sat, 1/31/09, bf <bf2006a@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: bf <bf2006a@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Alternatives to gcc (was Re: gcc 4.3: when will it becomestandard compiler?)
To: "Mark Linimon" <linimon@lonesome.com>, giffunip@tutopia.com
Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org, "Sean Cavanaugh" <Millenia2000@hotmail.com>
Date: Saturday, January 31, 2009, 9:21 PM
--- On Sat, 1/31/09, Pedro F. Giffuni <giffunip@tutopia.com> wrote:
...
> Let us assume that you are correct. If no one else saw much value
> in doing it, and you don't think it's worth the effort, then what
> _are_ you complaining about?
Exactly :).
I do see a value in removing GNU readline though.
> Well, gcc certainly isn't ideal. But the improvements are real, even
> if there may be some regressions, too. And the effort involved in
> porting gcc 4.3.x may well be less than that required to enable pcc to
> compile the base on all platforms, let alone most of the third-party
> software.
And it can live happily in the ports tree.
BTW, I hope one of these "real" improvements include building again on PowerPC soon because in the mean time it's simply not an option.
Pedro.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?52572.84275.qm>