Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030726125858.4acb44a7.Alexander>