Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2002 06:00:45 -0700 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: leimy2k@mac.com Cc: obrien@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG, Alexander Langer <alex@big.endian.de>, Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at> Subject: Re: gcc 3.1 / streambuf.h broken with "using namespace std;" Message-ID: <3D720F7D.4E7E0EE9@mindspring.com> References: <1FFDCCFF-BDA8-11D6-9DF6-0003937E39E0@mac.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
leimy2k@mac.com wrote: [ ... ] > > I guess the fear is that, if they are willing to destroy binary > > compatability between point releases, with another point release > > in the wings, it would be risky to pick the point release one > > behind to standardise upon. > > > > There will hopefully always be "one behind".... its called progress. > They haven't implemented "export" yet so they don't have a 100% > compliant C++ compiler yet either... no reason to stop. Realize that this was a very old discussion which was only recent revived because of David O'Brien's mailer. 8-). The context of this discussion was one of people demanding that David do work to migrate FreeBSD 5.0 to GCC 3.x (2 <= x <= 3), and the fact that 3.3 will not be officially released until after the scheduled FreeBSD 5.0 release date. > > It was my understanding that FreeBSD 5.0 release was not going > > to be GCC 3.3 (because GCC 3.3 would not be released in time for > > FreeBSD to not be "pulling a RedHat" if they shipped a beta and > > called it 3.3) , might be GCC 3.2, and was currently down-rev > > from there. > > RedHat actually created a release that never occurred [2.96] in the gcc > release chain... and if you use it, its actually a pretty nice > compiler.... I know the ABI doesn't work with anything but 2.96 though. This is the point I was making in the post previous, to which David's was a reply. The general consensus was that this was a pretty stupid thing for RedHat to do, without the permission of the GCC maintainers. What that means for a FreeBSD 5.0 is a potential incompatability for a point release (something which has never happened in the history of FreeBSD) at some time in the future, when the compiler changes yet again, or a lock-in to an older version of the GCC compiler (something which *has* happened). Both possibilities have their drawbacks. > >> How is this different from FreeBSD? > >> (other than they branch much before the .0 release and we don't). > > > > FreeBSD has been been branched for 18 months before the 5.0 release; > > what are you talking about?!? There's not much more "much" than > > that, in the entire history of GCC. > > I thought the comparison was pretty clear myself... FreeBSD current > is branched from the same CVS then worked on... the STABLE folks don't > usually start whining about all the stuff that's going to be broken for > them .... maybe not until DP2 anyway. :) It more about what happens overall, when, for example, all the C++ Gnome code has to be recompiled, or the software stops working between point releases, because the GCC folks have broken binary compatability between compiler point releases (again). In any case, the decision of what compiler to import is, as it always has been, up to the guy who doe the work, and so far, that has been David. -- Terry 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?3D720F7D.4E7E0EE9>