Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:45:12 +0000 From: Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com> To: "Mikhail T." <mi+thun@aldan.algebra.com> Cc: Chris Rees <crees@freebsd.org>, stable@freebsd.org, office@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why can't gcc-4.2.1 build usable libreoffice? Message-ID: <CADLo83-FoLrZGgkDZjjQ-jb-fcZNS3isn-F=zbd9pVkkmXQZUQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <51238AE9.20205@aldan.algebra.com> References: <511CED39.2010909@aldan.algebra.com> <CADLo83-a7yqkFhgMinGiookjvgtFuTVeGQobOepuHDCeH_wsog@mail.gmail.com> <51238AE9.20205@aldan.algebra.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 19 Feb 2013 14:23, "Mikhail T." <mi+thun@aldan.algebra.com> wrote: > > 18.02.2013 15:26, Chris Rees =D0=BD=D0=B0=D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=81=D0=B0=D0=B2(= =D0=BB=D0=B0): >> >> I'm sure you understand that our compiler in base is rather elderly, >> and that a project as insanely huge as Libreoffice is going to be >> highly sensitive to minute changes. > > No, Chris... I do not understand this wonderfully PR-esque response. See, my understanding always was, the only possible reasons for a compiler to produce a non-starting executable are: > The code is buggy. > The compiler is buggy. > Both of the above. > My question was, which is it? My answer is that it is almost certainly (b). You are welcome to ask upstream about it, but I doubt they would show much interest in such an old compiler. I think it's insanity that we still use this version for ports by default, but never mind. Chris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CADLo83-FoLrZGgkDZjjQ-jb-fcZNS3isn-F=zbd9pVkkmXQZUQ>