Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 09:52:28 -0800 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.ORG> To: Jan Stocker <jstocker@tzi.de> Cc: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com>, Alexander Kabaev <ak03@gte.com>, Martin Blapp <mb@imp.ch>, imp@village.org, edhall@weirdnoise.com, kris@obsecurity.org, current@FreeBSD.ORG, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, edhall@screech.weirdnoise.com Subject: Re: gcc -O broken in CURRENT Message-ID: <20020315095228.B44160@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <000001c1cc1e$318e9e80$fe02010a@twoflower.liebende.de>; from jstocker@tzi.de on Fri, Mar 15, 2002 at 01:37:39PM %2B0100 References: <3C911606.D9F74169@mindspring.com> <000001c1cc1e$318e9e80$fe02010a@twoflower.liebende.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Mar 15, 2002 at 01:37:39PM +0100, Jan Stocker wrote: > A little bit... most of you argumenting about binary incompatibility > for -stable. OK... no chance to do it there, its my opinion too. But why not > doing it for current and using that most common dwarf unwinding now (for a There is no need to cause developers to go thru several ABI changes such that they cannot get their other FreeBSD development done. With GCC 3.1 a number of ABI changes will happen. > > Port has less patches. If you look at > > /usr/src/contrib/gcc/contrib/freebsd.h and > > /usr/src/contrib/gcc/contrib/i386/freebsd.h you will see how much things > > have to be modified because we support dual ELF/a.out [still]. > > This may be changed too for 5.0 shouldnt it? Why? I don't see how you justfied removing the functionality and I don't see how it is causing you any problems being there. -- -- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020315095228.B44160>