Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2003 12:58:58 +0200 From: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: gcc ABI compliance (was: Re: Memory Mangement Problem in 5.1-RELEASE) Message-ID: <20030726125858.4acb44a7.Alexander@Leidinger.net> In-Reply-To: <3F221E08.FAE1638C@mindspring.com> References: <000001c3521a$7fa912c0$6bd4bfac@AlHindawi> <1059139238.50681.0.camel@CPE-65-26-140-154.kc.rr.com> <3F221E08.FAE1638C@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 23:22:00 -0700
Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > Didn't the GNU people say they had to change it to be more ABI compliant
> > with the 'standard'?
>
> I will believe that when they upgrade their FORTRAN compiler
> to be more compliant with 'the standard'.
>
> Some standards are not worth complying with; I still have yet
> to see anyone tell me exactly what the practical benefit of
> doing this is.
When X (X > 1) compilers comply to the same ABI standard, I can mix the
results of those compilers (if I see a benefit to do so).
As we have icc in the ports collection and the base system is compiled
with gcc and I want to be able to link to gcc compiled libs with icc, I
appreciate the effort of the involved parties to try to comply to a
common ABI standard.
Bye,
Alexander.
--
I believe the technical term is "Oops!"
http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net
GPG fingerprint = C518 BC70 E67F 143F BE91 3365 79E2 9C60 B006 3FE7
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030726125858.4acb44a7.Alexander>