Re: Sparc buildd a cross-compiler?
On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 06:54:10PM +0000, Philip Blundell wrote:
>
> In message <[🔎] 20011222134912.B30037@blimpo.internal.net>, Ben Collins writes:
> >Don't discount sparc just because the code is broken. That's a bug in
> >itself. Fix the code, get it to compile. SPARC is one of the most tested
> >archs we have, so if it is broken there, you have some serious issues
> >anyway, and covering it by not building on sparc is not the answer.
> >
> >I don't do C++, so you'll have to ask some experts.
>
> G++ 2.95 is pretty broken in its own right. Just because it won't compile
> something doesn't necessarily mean that the source is at fault. I wouldn't
> regard it as unreasonable for C++ programs to require 3.0 these days.
I don't think it is unreasonable in Debian to require that programs work
with the default toolset available for the arch. Most of the archs do
not use gcc-3.0 as the default. Keeping one toolchain in shape to
compile the entire dist is enough work without having to require archs
to maintain two stable toolchains.
That said, there are two issues:
1) Currently on archs that use gcc-2.95 as the default, using gcc-3.0
and especially g++-3.0 is not supported by libc6. The backward
compatibility is not what it should be, and wont be until glibc 2.2.5.
So using it now only means you potentially leave your app open to
breakage later on.
2) There are HOWTO's on creating "generic" C++ for gcc-2.95 and gcc-3.0,
so it compiles on both. They are in the porting page, IIRC. The "broken"
C++ has been around a long time, and "works" in as much as it has been
tested for a _long_ time.
--
.----------=======-=-======-=========-----------=====------------=-=-----.
/ Ben Collins -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` bcollins@debian.org -- bcollins@openldap.org -- bcollins@linux.com '
`---=========------=======-------------=-=-----=-===-======-------=--=---'
Reply to: