From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Oct 8 08:18:35 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: current@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 095501065686; Wed, 8 Oct 2008 08:18:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ohartman@zedat.fu-berlin.de) Received: from outpost1.zedat.fu-berlin.de (outpost1.zedat.fu-berlin.de [130.133.4.66]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B74208FC17; Wed, 8 Oct 2008 08:18:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ohartman@zedat.fu-berlin.de) Received: from inpost2.zedat.fu-berlin.de ([130.133.4.69]) by outpost1.zedat.fu-berlin.de (Exim 4.69) with esmtp (envelope-from ) id <1KnTxu-0000i2-Pt>; Wed, 08 Oct 2008 10:00:14 +0200 Received: from telesto.geoinf.fu-berlin.de ([130.133.86.198]) by inpost2.zedat.fu-berlin.de (Exim 4.69) with esmtpsa (envelope-from ) id <1KnTxu-0001SX-Ot>; Wed, 08 Oct 2008 10:00:14 +0200 Message-ID: <48EC67FF.3030900@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2008 07:57:51 +0000 From: "O. Hartmann" Organization: Freie =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Universit=E4t_Berlin?= User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (X11/20080927) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alexander Kabaev References: <20070518192007.6e6a91e1@kan.dnsalias.net> <20070519022016.2b4a6bda@kan.dnsalias.net> In-Reply-To: <20070519022016.2b4a6bda@kan.dnsalias.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: 130.133.86.198 Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: HEADS UP: GCC 4.2.0 is coming X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2008 08:18:35 -0000 Alexander Kabaev wrote: > On Fri, 18 May 2007 19:20:07 -0400 > Alexander Kabaev wrote: > >> HEADS UP: I will start importing GCC 4.2.0 bits in about one hour and >> plan to finish in a couple of hours after that. >> >> The src/ tree will be utterly broken meanwhile. I'll send an 'all >> clear' message when done. > > Done. > Just for those who aren't on the cutting edge: why gcc 4.2.0 and not 4.2.1 as it is used in 7.X? Regards, O.