Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 13:20:51 -0500 From: Alexander Kabaev <ak03@gte.com> To: <jstocker@tzi.de> Cc: mb@imp.ch, tlambert2@mindspring.com, imp@village.org, edhall@weirdnoise.com, kris@obsecurity.org, current@FreeBSD.ORG, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, obrien@FreeBSD.ORG, edhall@screech.weirdnoise.com Subject: Re: gcc -O broken in CURRENT Message-ID: <20020314132051.7f17a55b.ak03@gte.com> In-Reply-To: <000601c1cb7e$b82c18a0$fe02010a@twoflower.liebende.de> References: <20020314112547.55cc5786.ak03@gte.com> <000601c1cb7e$b82c18a0$fe02010a@twoflower.liebende.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> 2) Bug is in os delivered gcc but not in port gcc. > a) port has more or less patches / os gcc has been modified > --> Didn't someone told they are the same? GCC from ports uses DWARF2 exception unwinding while GCC in src tree uses sjlj exceptions. The exception handling code generated by these two compilers is very different as a result. > b) other options were set at compile time > --> Why dont change to the same in the port? > Leads it to a broken world? > If the only difference is the lost of binary compatibility, > i would say, ok... do it now and we'll need to compile > or ports... Pretty much each and every C++ binary and shared library will have to be recompiled. Massive binary compatibility breakage is not an option for -STABLE, one can hope. 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?20020314132051.7f17a55b.ak03>