Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 17:25:45 +0100 From: Bjoern Fischer <bfischer@Techfak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE> To: David O'Brien <obrien@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Which egcs port should I use? Message-ID: <19991113172545.A336@frolic.no-support.loc> In-Reply-To: <19991112211833.A71113@relay.nuxi.com>; from obrien@FreeBSD.ORG on Fri, Nov 12, 1999 at 09:18:33PM -0800 References: <19991113030626.A659@frolic.no-support.loc> <19991112211833.A71113@relay.nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Nov 12, 1999 at 09:18:33PM -0800, David O'Brien wrote: > On Sat, Nov 13, 1999 at 03:06:26AM +0100, Bjoern Fischer wrote: > > Which egcs would you recommend, if I want to minimize the hassle to > > switch from that egcs to the FreeBSD4.x native egcs? >=20 > /usr/ports/lang/egcs. It is the one that is released code. > ``gcc-devel'' is equivent to our -CURRENT and can bleed just as bad. Thank you for your help. Yes, egcs is 2.95.x and gcc-devel is 2.96 and the bleeding edge. This is irrelevant since I don't plan to use egcs for production. I'd like to know whether the ports behave like the native compiler in -CURRENT. E.g. now I tell Joe User to use -R/vol/foo/lib for the runtime library search path (Joe User is familiar with Solaris and enjoys everything he already knows). But when he wishes to perform some experiments wich egcs, then he should use -Wl,-rpath. And when we switch to the next FreeBSD brach, I tell him that he has to use something completely different for the native egcs. Bj=F6rn --=20 -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- GCS d--(+) s++: a- C+++(-) UB++++OSI++++$ P+++(-) L---(++) !E W- N+ o>+ K- !w !O !M !V PS++ PE- PGP++ t+++ !5 X++ tv- b+++ D++ G e+ h-- y+=20 ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19991113172545.A336>