Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 15 Mar 2002 09:52:28 -0800
From:      "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.ORG>
To:        Jan Stocker <jstocker@tzi.de>
Cc:        Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com>, Alexander Kabaev <ak03@gte.com>, Martin Blapp <mb@imp.ch>, imp@village.org, edhall@weirdnoise.com, kris@obsecurity.org, current@FreeBSD.ORG, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, edhall@screech.weirdnoise.com
Subject:   Re: gcc -O broken in CURRENT
Message-ID:  <20020315095228.B44160@dragon.nuxi.com>
In-Reply-To: <000001c1cc1e$318e9e80$fe02010a@twoflower.liebende.de>; from jstocker@tzi.de on Fri, Mar 15, 2002 at 01:37:39PM +0100
References:  <3C911606.D9F74169@mindspring.com> <000001c1cc1e$318e9e80$fe02010a@twoflower.liebende.de>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
On Fri, Mar 15, 2002 at 01:37:39PM +0100, Jan Stocker wrote:
> A little bit... most of you argumenting about binary incompatibility
> for -stable. OK... no chance to do it there, its my opinion too. But why not
> doing it for current and using that most common dwarf unwinding now (for a

There is no need to cause developers to go thru several ABI changes such
that they cannot get their other FreeBSD development done.  With GCC 3.1
a number of ABI changes will happen.


> > Port has less patches.  If you look at
> > /usr/src/contrib/gcc/contrib/freebsd.h and
> > /usr/src/contrib/gcc/contrib/i386/freebsd.h you will see how much things
> > have to be modified because we support dual ELF/a.out [still].
> 
> This may be changed too for 5.0 shouldnt it?

Why?  I don't see how you justfied removing the functionality and I don't
see how it is causing you any problems being there.
 
-- 
-- David  (obrien@FreeBSD.org)

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: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020315095228.B44160>