Re: worrying about sparc/alpha boot floppies
On Mon, 1 Feb 1999, Martin Lucina wrote:
> I was rather surprised that you are using egcs rather than gcc. Can someone
> enlighten me on why it is not possible to use stock gcc 220.127.116.11 as the standard
> compiler on alpha?
Yes, it simply won't compile without a ton of patching. We had a 18.104.22.168
for about 6-8 months, but when 22.214.171.124 came out, no one had all of the
patches that had been applied to 126.96.36.199, and we would've had to start
over. This is not to mention the NUMEROUS problems that we had with
188.8.131.52 (no exception-handling, BIG optimiser bugs, etc). The
responce from the gcc lists when I asked for Alpha support was all "well,
just use egcs until 2.8.0 comes out" at the time, so we started with it.
It's done us proud for awhile, despite the sometimes buggy nature of such
an aggressive development model, but it works far more reliably for us
than even gcc 2.8.x has (I do run tests on those still).