Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 21:56:10 -0000 From: Paul Richards <paul@freebsd-services.com> To: Lyndon Nerenberg <lyndon@atg.aciworldwide.com>, Giorgos Keramidas <charon@labs.gr> Cc: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.ORG>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: GNU Compiler Symlinks Message-ID: <763630000.1004565370@lobster.originative.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <200110301650.f9UGof0H009849@atg.aciworldwide.com> References: <200110301650.f9UGof0H009849@atg.aciworldwide.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--On Tuesday, October 30, 2001 09:50:41 -0700 Lyndon Nerenberg <lyndon@atg.aciworldwide.com> wrote: >> Well, Lyndon, this is quickly turning into a flamefest. > > 64 bit time_t is a flamefest. This, OTOH, is a very reasonable > discussion. > >> It really is not worth it, is it? > > Without discussion there would never be change. I was curious to > discover the rational for keeping the GNU names for the C compiler > (but not the other GNU tools). I'm not sure I really received an > answer, and maybe that's the answer in itself. When I originally imported gcc2, for the very first FreeBSD release, I actually patched it so that it looked like it was cc. Somewhere along the way this practice stopped for cc but not the other tools. It had the benefit in that we could support development versions of gcc that were installed in /usr/local (ports hadn't been invented then). We could test newer compilers quite easily that way by just changing CC to be gcc instead of cc. Likewise, which was an issue at the time with the move to 2.x versions of gcc, other software that required a newer version of the compiler could be built using gcc rather than the system's cc. I'm not sure who stopped that practice but it was useful. Paul Richards FreeBSD Services Ltd http://www.freebsd-services.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?763630000.1004565370>