Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 11:59:52 -0500 (EST) From: "John S. Dyson" <toor@dyson.iquest.net> To: jak@cetlink.net (John Kelly) Cc: chuckr@glue.umd.edu, jb@cimlogic.com.au, tlambert@primenet.com, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Fix for undefined "__error" and discussion of shared object versioning Message-ID: <199805261659.LAA19904@dyson.iquest.net> In-Reply-To: <356a9f0a.251653824@mail.cetlink.net> from John Kelly at "May 26, 98 10:59:24 am"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Tue, 26 May 1998 01:23:15 -0400 (EDT), Chuck Robey > <chuckr@glue.umd.edu> wrote: > > >> > > BTW, what's you opinion of egcs? > >> > > >> > It seems to have frequent ups and downs. > > >I don't know if it counts as a very persuasive data point, but a real > >large port of mine, octave, won't build under egcs (I got an internal > >compiler error for which I submitted a bug report). Gcc-2.8.1 compiled > >and ran it fine > > The "e" in egcs does stand for experimental. The NetBSD developers > must be confident the bugs will shake out soon since they are planning > to move to egcs, or they must think the benefits are worth the bugs. > We are also not "controlling" egcs. This means that we are relatively passively dependent on a vendor. It is definitely hit-or-miss whether or not that we can adopt egcs. In a few weeks, I'll try to regression test a couple of egcs releases and/or snapshots. I am hopeful, but definitely not confident that one of the releases is stable enough. I really don't think that we would want to also get into compiler support issues. Tool support issues are complex enough. I can imagine that egcs (could) be stable enough for our c++ compiler, but am much less confident of it being our default c compiler. John To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199805261659.LAA19904>