Re: CD.

[Brederlow <goswin.brederlow@student.uni-tuebingen.de>]

Michael Schmitz <SCHMITZ@LCBVAX.CCHEM.BERKELEY.EDU> writes:

> Hi,
> 
> Well, technically you're compiling everything. For what reason, I wonder. 
> Whatever.

1. To see if it compiles. No point in selling a CD with Source that
doesn't work.
2. Optimisation (speed)
3. Some Packages aren't compiled for m68k yet

> >The compilation is done with egcs, so some packages that work with gcc 
> >might not compile (egcs is more strict in some things). I uploaded the 
> 
> WHY???? Why not use gcc 2.7.2.3 or whatever is the most current stable 
> gcc release?? What egcs features do you need (that Debian/68k doesn't need, 
> obviously)?? 

egcs is more strict with warnings and errors and is closer to ansi. It 
has some bugs left out and produces faster code. It also is faster
compiling. Since it is (supposed to be ) gcc compatibel (except with
dirty or faulty code) there shouldn't be any difference (except the
gains mentioned above). Also I don't think its said anywhere that one
must use gcc. Any Ansi C/C++ compiler should be fine.

> ecgs is, for all I know, not a stable compiler, and it's definitely not advised
> for e.g. kernel compilation. There's a reason why Debian sticks to gcc, I'm 
> sure.

There is an egcs 1.0 release wich works fine. At the moment we have
egcs compiled kernels running on all the comps here but one. No
crashes so far. Compiling a kernel is a pretty good test for a
compiler and egcs did that just fine. (30 mins for a kernel with -O9)

The "unstableness", as you call it, of egcs is also another reason for 
compiling everything. If that works fine, the egcs should also be
fine.

May the Source be with you.
			Mrvn


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-68k-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .