From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Jul 7 01:48:23 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id BAA07510 for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 7 Jul 1996 01:48:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from parkplace.cet.co.jp (parkplace.cet.co.jp [202.32.64.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id BAA07505 for ; Sun, 7 Jul 1996 01:48:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (michaelh@localhost) by parkplace.cet.co.jp (8.7.5/CET-v2.1) with SMTP id IAA06189; Sun, 7 Jul 1996 08:48:07 GMT Date: Sun, 7 Jul 1996 17:48:07 +0900 (JST) From: Michael Hancock To: Amancio Hasty cc: Greg Lehey , FreeBSD Hackers Subject: Re: gcc lies? In-Reply-To: <199607070830.BAA00607@rah.star-gate.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk It's was probably done more for compilability and stability. I just got word that they've been using gcc 2 for a couple of months now. -mike On Sun, 7 Jul 1996, Amancio Hasty wrote: > Dumb question , is gcc-1.42 a lot faster than gcc-2.x? > > Tnks, > Amancio > > >From The Desk Of Greg Lehey : > > Michael Hancock writes: > > > > > > This is probably why BSDI uses gcc 1.x for the kernel and gives their > > > screaming customers 2.7.2. > > > > Hey, you're right, even BSD/OS 2.1 still uses gcc 1.42. You'd think > > they would have got their act together by now. But I remember the > > background: there was something to do with kernel structures being > > aligned differently under gcc 2.x. You'd think they would have it > > fixed by now, though. > > > > Greg > > > > -- michaelh@cet.co.jp http://www.cet.co.jp CET Inc., Daiichi Kasuya BLDG 8F 2-5-12, Higashi Shinbashi, Minato-ku, Tokyo 105 Japan Tel: +81-3-3437-1761 Fax: +81-3-3437-1766