Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 19:01:16 -0700 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Lyndon Nerenberg <lyndon@atg.aciworldwide.com>, arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: your mail Message-ID: <20011025190116.C4609@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <XFMail.011025141932.jhb@FreeBSD.org>; from jhb@FreeBSD.org on Thu, Oct 25, 2001 at 02:19:32PM -0700
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Oct 25, 2001 at 02:19:32PM -0700, John Baldwin wrote: > We can still keep the gcc names because, well, they are gcc. :) However, > calling the system compiler 'cc' makes perfect sense, and it shouldn't > hurt to do this. We all *ready* call the system compiler `cc'. So I don't understand what you are saying. > In fact, since Lyndon is just asking for a switch to do it (and not > one that will be on by default) there should be no harm in adding such a > switch. Other than a messier Makefile for what I see as a very rare corner case. > Remember, we aren't supposed to set policy here. :) The base system > should not depend on the 'gcc' name, so having an _option_ to not use > the g* names shouldn't be something to get upset about. We aren't setting policy. Like it or not, our system compiler is `gcc'. Also like it or not `gcc' is the most prolific compiler in all of history. -- -- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20011025190116.C4609>