Date: Sun, 4 Apr 1999 13:43:30 +0200 From: Ollivier Robert <roberto@keltia.freenix.fr> To: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: X problems using egcs as compiler Message-ID: <19990404134330.B3397@keltia.freenix.fr> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9904031345360.802-100000@zippy.dyn.ml.org>; from Alex Zepeda on Sat, Apr 03, 1999 at 01:47:11PM -0800 References: <19990403225146.A99040@keltia.freenix.fr> <Pine.BSF.4.05.9904031345360.802-100000@zippy.dyn.ml.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
According to Alex Zepeda: > Personally, I'd vote for using the new runtime objects, and forcing binary > incompatibility. It's worth it IMO for the exception handling support if > nothing else. However, if you're dead set against it, just back up your > runtime objects, and edit the spec file (like the egcs port forced you to > do at one time, and probably still does). The problem I see is that exceptions are for C++ and forcing ANSI C files to be compiled with -fexceptions and linked with new runtime objects is probably not the best way... -- Ollivier ROBERT -=- FreeBSD: The Power to Serve! -=- roberto@keltia.freenix.fr FreeBSD keltia.freenix.fr 4.0-CURRENT #70: Sat Feb 27 09:43:08 CET 1999 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?19990404134330.B3397>