From owner-freebsd-current Sun Feb 28 15:20:24 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from alcanet.com.au (border.alcanet.com.au [203.62.196.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDF2714F1F for ; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 15:20:19 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from peter.jeremy@auss2.alcatel.com.au) Received: by border.alcanet.com.au id <40427>; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 10:08:39 +1100 Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 10:19:45 +1100 From: Peter Jeremy Subject: Re: gcc To: jkh@zippy.cdrom.com Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Message-Id: <99Mar1.100839est.40427@border.alcanet.com.au> Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Chuck Robey wrote: > Please keep in mind that if, in our haste, we import a compiler that > puts instability into FreeBSD, then we've drunk poison. I agree that -STABLE _must_ remain stable. That said, I believe that we _do_ need to move forward. I'd like to see either EGCS or gcc-2.8.1 (and the former seems to be better supported at present) brought into -current as soon as practical. "Jordan K. Hubbard" wrote: >A legit concern, but also realize that all of us are talking about >4.0 here - the new compiler would be an issue we'd have up to a full >year on before the product it's in goes mainstream. I'd like to see it merged back into the 3.x tree earlier than this. The general complaining about compiler related issues (C++ and FORTRAN-77 being the two most recent issues) will continue until the compiler makes it into a release. I think we should be able to easily validate the compiler in time for the 3.x.y release due around October (assuming the 4-monthly releases continue) - maybe even the June release. Peter To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message