[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: egcs (New GCC)



On Sat, 16 Aug 1997, Bruce Perens wrote:

> From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca>
> > Someone should really package this, but I wonder if two versions of GCC
> > will cause alot of trouble?
> 
> If these guys can make a go of it, we should go to their version.
> The problem is that nobody has been able to get changes into "gcc"
> unless they work for Cygnus. This has gone on for 5 or 6 years now.

My following of the thread on gnu.help follows with this, there are three
bad things:
  - FSF hasn't been integrating patches from other, Cygnus seems to have
    better luck mind you
  - FSF hasn't released a new GCC for 1.5 -YEARS-! Cygnus has been 
    releasing 4 times a year, and they send all patches to the FSF.
  - FSF is sitting on 2.8 that Cygnus people say has many many many major
    C++ fixes.

pgcc is a good example, they have been trying for a long time to get
patches in. I understand egcs plans to integrate their patches.

If egcs makes their start of september release I suggest that we dump 2.7
and move to 2.90 (what they are numbering their release).

BTW, I think FSF is mostly justified in not releasing, gcc is so important
to alot of people that a flawed release could be really bad for them.

Oh, FSF does not refer to the Free Software Foundation as a whole, only
the group working on GCC, the statements expressed above are a summary of
usenet posting ans may not represent reality, yadda yadda yadda.

Jason


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


Reply to: