Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 7 Feb 2002 10:11:33 -0800
From:      "David O'Brien" <>
To:        Mikhail Teterin <>
Subject:   Re: How about gcj? (Re: Not committing WARNS settings...)
Message-ID:  <>

Next in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 12:39:35AM -0500, Mikhail Teterin wrote:
> I believe,  what I see.  And that is, FreeBSD  includes both --  gdb and
> gcc, but only one libbfd, thankfully. And  I want to be able to use that
> same libbfd  for my own development  and for porting of  other compilers
> and tools.

GCC does not use bfd -- it does not need to as GCC spits out ASM code,
not machine code.  Arguing that Binutils and GDB uses the same bfd is a
more valid argument.  I would like to point out there have been some
minor issues with using the bfd from Binutils 2.11.2 with the old GDB

GCC and GDB does both use libiberty.  You will notice that GCC uses its
own copy (the files are piled into the src/contrib/gcc directory with the
rest of the GCC code).  And GDB uses a different copy.

> This IS the problem I'm trying to solve.
> > WHY do you want to cause this problem of non-matching bits?
> So they'll be matched and fixed, leading to a better world 8-)

I don't know how many times I've said this and why you aren't listening.
THEY CANNOT BE MATCHED.  Go ask the FSF developers.  They will tell you
the same thing -- that is why each package's CVS repo maintains its own
copy.  The FSF developers will tell you using the copy of libiberty is

> Evidently, this does not prevent the FreeBSD project from using the same
> libbfd for its gdb and gcc. Even though, the presense of both

Again, see above.  This is how little you know of the "problem".  GCC

> 	/usr/obj/usr/src/gnu/usr.bin/binutils/libbfd/libbfd.a
> and
> 	/usr/obj/usr/src/i386/ccd/src/gnu/usr.bin/binutils/libbfd/libbfd.a
> is somewhat mistifying to me, but I'm  sure they are built from the same
> source.

*SIGH*  This also shows how little you know of the "make buildworld"
process.  Before you start suggesting the things you have, you really
need to start treating ``make buildworld'' as something other than a
black box.  ``make buildworld'' compiles two copies of some things because
of bootstrapping [and cross compiling] issues.

> > No I want to drop Alpha because no one cares about it and not just the
> > compiler, but much  more often kernel, WARNS, and  other changes break
> > the Alpha.
> Alright, so you do find it  nightmarish.

*sigh*  NO!  Stop putting words in my mouth.  I find it extremely
ANNOYING.  nightmarish != annoying

> > That is  NOT a  problem. That  is just some  mis-founded goal  with no
> > basis of purpose.
> Well,  than  nothing is  a  problem.  Which  problem is  FreeBSD's  very
> existence trying to  solve, huh?

Sure some things are a problem.  GCC 2.95 generates bad optimized code on
the Alpha.  Upgrading to 3.1 will fix [some of] this.  We cannot do a
"make buildworld" of -CURRENT code on a 4.1 system because of our
addition of __FBSDID().  We cannot support > 4 GB RAM in any machine
(Peter Wemm is working on this); and people need to be able to.  Those
are real problems.

> > FEH!! You are going  to patch the nightmare (yes I  will use that term
> > to describe  this) autoconf and autoMake  bits that come with  the GNU
> > tools? Good luck! In general with GNU tools, JUST LEAVE THINGS THE WAY
> Yes, I very well  might. Or, may be, I'll introduce  Makefiles of my own
> -- Something already done for the C compiler and all the other GNU tools
> in the base, BTW.

Submit tested patches and we'll talk farther.  But I've seen you have
only thought about this off the top of your head with no investigation
into the issues.
-- David  (

To Unsubscribe: send mail to
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

To Unsubscribe: send mail to
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <>