Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 10:15:46 -0800 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.ORG> To: Jan Stocker <jstocker@tzi.de> Cc: Alexander Kabaev <ak03@gte.com>, Martin Blapp <mb@imp.ch>, tlambert2@mindspring.com, imp@village.org, edhall@weirdnoise.com, kris@obsecurity.org, current@FreeBSD.ORG, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, edhall@screech.weirdnoise.com Subject: Re: gcc -O broken in CURRENT Message-ID: <20020314101546.B56417@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <000601c1cb7e$b82c18a0$fe02010a@twoflower.liebende.de>; from jstocker@tzi.de on Thu, Mar 14, 2002 at 06:36:05PM %2B0100 References: <20020314112547.55cc5786.ak03@gte.com> <000601c1cb7e$b82c18a0$fe02010a@twoflower.liebende.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Mar 14, 2002 at 06:36:05PM +0100, Jan Stocker wrote: > 2) Bug is in os delivered gcc but not in port gcc. > a) port has more or less patches / os gcc has been modified > --> Didn't someone told they are the same? Port has less patches. If you look at /usr/src/contrib/gcc/contrib/freebsd.h and /usr/src/contrib/gcc/contrib/i386/freebsd.h you will see how much things have to be modified because we support dual ELF/a.out [still]. > b) other options were set at compile time > --> Why dont change to the same in the port? I am willing to -- the gcc295 port isn't used very much now AFAIK. However, it will probably be once 5-CURRENT moves to a newer version. The FSF GCC people had settings in the i386/freebsd.h file I did not agree with, but it would have been too much pain to change them in the FSF 2.95 release branch. I am willing (and may have to anyway), make the port more agree with the FreeBSD system compiler. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020314101546.B56417>