Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 11 Aug 1996 17:45:00 -0600
From:      Warner Losh <imp@village.org>
To:        Josh MacDonald <jmacd@CS.Berkeley.EDU>
Cc:        current@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Whither gcc 2.7? 
Message-ID:  <199608112345.RAA25908@rover.village.org>
In-Reply-To: Your message of Sun, 11 Aug 1996 13:37:26 PDT

next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Josh,
	Thank you for your comments.

: Recent mail on the gcc mailing lists suggest that the -V and -b
: options to allow a single driver to use multiple installations
: doesn't really work.  See subjects heading '-B or -V vs __GNUC__MINOR__'.

Other mail in that thread suggests using -B doesn't work, because -B
isn't the correct way to select versions or machine types.  It also
suggests that -V or -b do work correctly.  I had to use -V back in the
2.3ish and 2.4ish days, and it worked then.  I've used the -b option
many times in cross compiling experimental kernels for my MIPS PC with
2.5.x, 2.6.x and most recently 2.7.2.  Some quick tests here shows
that -V seems to select the right binaries, and define __GNUC__ and
__GNUC_MINOR__ correctly.  If something has broken between what I'm
running and the latest release, then it should be easy to fix.

: I think the most important thing is that the gcc port is somewhat
: official and blessed by someone who really knows FreeBSD and gcc.
: 
: I found it disturbing that in order to do c++ development on FreeBSD
: over the last 9 months I've had to do my own ports of gcc several 
: times.  It gives me an uneasy feeling that I haven't gotten everything
: right.  I don't care which compiler compiles my kernel or my standard
: installation.

I've done the port enough times to know that I've not caught
everything, but will be happy to accept any critisisms from such a
port from those who know some of the details better than I.  I can
think of several such people on this list (but hesitate to list them
all because I'd no doubt slight someone by leaving them off the list
by mistake).  It is my perception that they are busy with other things
and do not have the time to put together a full, bmaked release right
now.

I have a prototype of the port done, and gcc is building now (with my
mere 486 that is overloaded with other things too, this takes a
while).  I will no doubt have to tweak it here or there before it is
ready.  I'm torn between having it do a full make bootstrap each time,
or just having it to do the normal make.  make boostrap is much safer
(especially if you don't know what version of gcc you are starting
with), but take quite a bit longer to build because it effectively
builds three times (once with the native compiler, once with the new
compiler compiled with the native compiler and once with the new
compiler compiled with the new compiler).

Comments?

Warner



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199608112345.RAA25908>