Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2005 23:24:06 -0500 From: linimon@lonesome.com (Mark Linimon) To: obrien@freebsd.org, Ruslan Ermilov <ru@freebsd.org>, Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav <des@des.no>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Cc: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> Subject: Re: [current tinderbox] failure on ...all... Message-ID: <20050612042406.GB5996@soaustin.net> In-Reply-To: <20050612022105.GB67746@dragon.NUXI.org> 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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> 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 can't imagine that with the long-established track record of gcc295 there is any reason to keep them. mcl
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050612042406.GB5996>