Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 15:25:08 -0700 From: Sean McNeil <sean@mcneil.com> To: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Cc: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 6.0-Current and gcc 4.x Message-ID: <1119479108.2709.3.camel@server.mcneil.com> In-Reply-To: <20050622221942.GA36733@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <42B409A7.5020909@mail.uni-mainz.de> <42B417C7.80904@samsco.org> <20050619043539.GA46516@dragon.NUXI.org> <20050622221942.GA36733@xor.obsecurity.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 2005-06-22 at 18:19 -0400, Kris Kennaway wrote: > On Sat, Jun 18, 2005 at 09:35:39PM -0700, David O'Brien wrote: > > 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. > > The ABI breakage at numerous points early in the GCC 3.x branch was > extremely disruptive. This is the amd64 mailing list, so I assume you are talking about amd64 machines and I thought the architecture wasn't really supported before GCC 3.x. In any event, I doubt there would be any such disruption between 3.x and 4.x. The amd64 ABI is pretty solid now, correct? Cheers, Sean
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1119479108.2709.3.camel>