Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 00:48:04 -0700 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org>, f-ports <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: is gcc 3.2 port "complete"? Message-ID: <20021010074804.GA8427@xor.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <20021010074616.GA52776@moo.holy.cow> References: <20021009213907.GA319@moo.holy.cow> <20021010063433.GA6809@xor.obsecurity.org> <20021010074616.GA52776@moo.holy.cow>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--bp/iNruPH9dso1Pn Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 03:46:16AM -0400, parv wrote: > a few days ago i noticed on -ports list that gcc v3.2 was really > gcc v3.1; i was wondering if the gcc32 port is really a v3.2 > port. It's a snapshot of the gcc 3.2 branch, yes. It temporarily appeared to be a gcc 3.1 port while it was being upgraded after a repo copy from 3.1 (since the gcc folks renamed the gcc 3.1 branch to gcc 3.2) > so i asked if lang/gcc32 was a complete (read: real v3.2) standards > complaint port. I can't speak for the standards compliance of it except to report from experience that it's certainly much pickier about the code it will compile. You'll have to try it for yourself or talk to the gcc people if you have specific questions. Kris --bp/iNruPH9dso1Pn Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE9pTC0Wry0BWjoQKURArRTAKC6TX+1/l/eyHD64DCZgCRMmMEXrgCgmrTy D5/VSKUzIGaWGOokDVdDgpA= =ziLu -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --bp/iNruPH9dso1Pn-- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20021010074804.GA8427>