Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 12 Jun 2005 23:56:18 -0700
From:      "David O'Brien" <obrien@freebsd.org>
To:        Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com>
Cc:        Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav <des@des.no>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: [current tinderbox] failure on ...all...
Message-ID:  <20050613065618.GA30092@dragon.NUXI.org>
In-Reply-To: <20050612042406.GB5996@soaustin.net>
References:  <20050609234619.AD1F67306E@freebsd-current.sentex.ca> <p0621025fbeceac0673f8@128.113.24.47> <84dead720506091950779d1661@mail.gmail.com> <86oeae3d8f.fsf@xps.des.no> <20050610071828.GB78035@ip.net.ua> <867jh23bwh.fsf@xps.des.no> <20050610074706.GE78035@ip.net.ua> <20050612022105.GB67746@dragon.NUXI.org> <20050612042406.GB5996@soaustin.net>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Jun 11, 2005 at 11:24:06PM -0500, Mark Linimon wrote:
> > I tried.  But Kris refused to consider the following for committing.
> > The problem is something like 3 ports will not build with
> > "-fno-strict-aliasing".  Those are the gcc28, gnat[*] ports.
> > 
> > [*] I really don't understand why we have a GCC 2.8 based Ada compiler
> > when Ada has been a native part of GCC since version 3.1...
> 
> If these ports are useless, why don't we mark them DEPRECATED and
> after a decent interval, get rid of them?
> 
> In this day and age, anyone who's on gcc27 or gcc28 is hopelessly
> behind anyways.

I could say that about tons of other ports.  The gcc28 port works fine,
and I don't see what is wrong with the patch I supplied.  gcc28 is still
the fastest compiler (in terms of compiler speed) we have on FreeBSD.  It
is still useful.

-- 
-- David  (obrien@FreeBSD.org)



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050613065618.GA30092>