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

Re: Way to switch easily (Was: Re: Egcs, gcc, and Debian)

>>>>> "SP" == Shaya Potter <spotter@itd.nrl.navy.mil> writes:
SP> On Tue 19 Aug 1997, Galen Hazelwood <galenh@micron.net> wrote:


>> It's not necessarily likely, but it's still possible...and I don't
>> like to take chances.  Besides, this compromise solves the "gcc
>> should always point to the stable gcc" objection.
SP> I agree that gcc should always point to the stable gcc, but we
SP> could also do that by having variables such as $VERSION and $BUILD
SP> and have them by default point to the stable gcc, and have gcc be
SP> a shell script that calls egcs or gcc.real or whatever.

I'm sorry guys, but what some of you are trying here is to reunite gcc
and egcs. Although the changes to egcs are ultimately intended to be
included later in gcc, they are, in principle, two different
compilers.  Just accept it. Why there is nobody working on scripts to
make /usr/bin/emacs call Emacs or XEmacs when appropriated? (Ok, I know
things are bit different here.)

If some package needs, for some reason, be compiled with one or
another, you can always give the appropriated options to `configure'
or whatever. Also, you can always use "make CC=egcc" or "make CC=gcc".

There is no need for panic, we just have a new compiler.

 Emilio C. Lopes <mailto:Emilio.Lopes@Physik.TU-Muenchen.DE>

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: