From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Dec 24 11:31:18 1995 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id LAA15398 for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 24 Dec 1995 11:31:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from bacchus.eng.umd.edu (bacchus.eng.umd.edu [129.2.94.5]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id LAA15387 for ; Sun, 24 Dec 1995 11:31:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from latte.eng.umd.edu (latte.eng.umd.edu [129.2.98.15]) by bacchus.eng.umd.edu (8.7.3/8.7) with ESMTP id OAA01685; Sun, 24 Dec 1995 14:31:10 -0500 (EST) Received: (chuckr@localhost) by latte.eng.umd.edu (8.7.3/8.6.4) id OAA03252; Sun, 24 Dec 1995 14:31:10 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 1995 14:31:09 -0500 (EST) From: Chuck Robey X-Sender: chuckr@latte.eng.umd.edu To: Jake Hamby cc: Josh MacDonald , freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: gcc 2.7.1 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk On Sun, 24 Dec 1995, Jake Hamby wrote: > > Surely as you suggest most people who are in need of the latest version > > of a gcc or whatever can probably compile it themselves, but it > > takes a lot of time and effort to make sure its installed prpoperly > > and working properly, especially to test the c++ installation because > > you can't do the 2 or 3 stage build/compare with it. It would be nice > > to at least see a set of difss or a package for libg++ and recent versions > > of gcc, this is my point. I can contribute what I've done, but who knows > > if I've done it right. If there is one unified version, then everyone who > > finds problems can contribute them and the GNU team will be better notified > > of FreeBSD diffs. > > I agree wholeheartedly! The main reason to upgrade GCC is the vastly > improved C++ support (but be sure to upgrade libg++ along with it). It > pays for FreeBSD to keep current on GCC, or we will fall into the trap of > NetBSD, who (I believe) only recently upgrade to GCC 2.7.x from their old > hacked 2.4.5. Also, it takes a certain amount of effort to modify GCC to > fit into the /usr/libexec tree, which many people (at least myself) are > not willing to do. Any comment on this from the core team? > I know some hacking was done on the stuff in /usr/src/lib/csu/i386 to get the c++ startup stuff to correctly initialize global classes. I don't know enough about the internals of gcc, or rather libg++, but I feel certain that this newer code will have to be called to make c++ code work correctly under FreeBSD. Would that mean that the gcc-2.7.2 code would have to be modified, or just to force it to use our present libc? ============================================================================ Chuck Robey chuckr@eng.umd.edu -- I run FreeBSD on n3lxx and Journey2 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Dilbert Zone is Dilbert's new WWW home! The area features never-before-seen original sketches of Dilbert, a photo tour of Scott Adams' studio, Dilbert Trivia and memorabilia, high school photos and much more!: