From owner-freebsd-ports Sun Dec 24 10:56:11 1995 Return-Path: owner-ports Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id KAA13681 for ports-outgoing; Sun, 24 Dec 1995 10:56:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from paris.CS.Berkeley.EDU (paris.CS.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.34.47]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA13670 Sun, 24 Dec 1995 10:56:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from paris.CS.Berkeley.EDU (localhost.Berkeley.EDU [127.0.0.1]) by paris.CS.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.11/8.6.9) with ESMTP id KAA23126; Sun, 24 Dec 1995 10:56:05 -0800 From: Josh MacDonald Message-Id: <199512241856.KAA23126@paris.CS.Berkeley.EDU> To: Chuck Robey Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: gcc 2.7.1 In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 24 Dec 1995 13:43:46 EST." Date: Sun, 24 Dec 1995 10:56:04 -0800 Sender: owner-ports@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk > On Sun, 24 Dec 1995, Josh MacDonald wrote: > > > > > Surely as you suggest most people who are in need of the latest version > > of a gcc or whatever can probably compile it themselves, but it > > takes a lot of time and effort to make sure its installed prpoperly > > and working properly, especially to test the c++ installation because > > you can't do the 2 or 3 stage build/compare with it. It would be nice > > to at least see a set of difss or a package for libg++ and recent versions > > of gcc, this is my point. I can contribute what I've done, but who knows > > if I've done it right. If there is one unified version, then everyone who > > finds problems can contribute them and the GNU team will be better notified > > of FreeBSD diffs. > > Ahh! Then you're asking for a port of gcc! Now that is an idea I can > completely agree with, and it sounds like a wise thing to do. It'll give > a lot of FreeBSD folks experience with it and it's various > bugs/enhancements. I think it was Kaleb Keithley that I saw reporting > his experiences with 2.7.2. Are you reading this, Kaleb? > > Perhaps this should be moved to FreeBSD-ports? > Yes. That would be very nice. Ummm, I still can't make shared libs work though. This would be a hard port to do in the normal ports fashion I think. I think the only three diffs I have for 2.7.1 right now are the ASM_WEAKEN_LABEL removal, a change to gcc's stdarg.h so that __gnuc_va_list agrees with libc, and gcc's stddef.h is all messed up. It doesn't undefine things like _BSD_SIZE_T_ leaves it defined but empty so that later stdlib.h will produce something like 'typedef size_t' and produce annoying warnings. Perhaps it is better not to use those two files. -josh best to not use them. I don't know.