From owner-freebsd-amd64@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jun 19 05:58:56 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A27416A41C for ; Sun, 19 Jun 2005 05:58:56 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from peterk@maltanet.net) Received: from maltanet.net (mailer4.maltanet.net [194.158.37.38]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59CCA43D1F for ; Sun, 19 Jun 2005 05:58:54 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from peterk@maltanet.net) Received: (qmail 3977 invoked by uid 516); 19 Jun 2005 06:06:44 -0000 Received: from 195.158.86.17 by mailer4.maltanet.net (envelope-from , uid 509) with qmail-scanner-1.25st (perlscan: 1.25st. Clear:RC:1(195.158.86.17):. Processed in 0.260143 secs); 19 Jun 2005 06:06:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO [192.168.1.1]) ([195.158.86.17]) (envelope-sender ) by 0 (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 19 Jun 2005 06:06:43 -0000 Message-ID: <42B5099C.90109@maltanet.net> Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 07:58:52 +0200 From: Peter Korsten User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317) X-Accept-Language: nl-NL, nl, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org References: <42B409A7.5020909@mail.uni-mainz.de> <42B417C7.80904@samsco.org> <20050619043539.GA46516@dragon.NUXI.org> In-Reply-To: <20050619043539.GA46516@dragon.NUXI.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Subject: Re: 6.0-Current and gcc 4.x X-BeenThere: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting FreeBSD to the AMD64 platform List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 05:58:56 -0000 David O'Brien schreef: > On Sat, Jun 18, 2005 at 06:47:03AM -0600, Scott Long wrote: > >>Given all the disruptions in the past 3 years over gcc >>3.x, I think it would be nice to take a small break and not be on the >>bleeding edge of gcc. > > I think you're grossly over exagerating the "disruptions" over GCC 3.x. I remember having to go back a version of GCC 3.x, because it wouldn't actually compile code. And going back with GCC is not a fun thing to do if you don't have a working compiler. - Peter