Re: RFD : libg++/gcc/egcs upgrades needed for libc6 (READ ME)
Galen Hazelwood <galenh@micron.net> writes:
> (James--I am cc'ing this to debian-devel. Hope you don't mind...)
Well not much I can do about if I do, is there? :-P
> > I'm not trying to be argumentative, I just genuinely don't understand
> > this urgent need to switch compilers.
>
> I'm pretty sure this was brought up in debian-devel. Check the
> archives for subjects matching the one on this message.
Well, while not as reliable as Guy's archives, my memory archives
can't remember anyone presenting valid reasons as to why exactly we
need egcs so badly as a C compiler and we surely must base the
compiler choice on that? C++, g77 & non-i386 architectures[1] are
important, but not as important as the C compiler IMO. (Compare and
contrast number of C vs. C++|g77 programs in archive then compare and
contrast number of packages-working-with-2.7.2.3
vs. packages-requiring-egcs)
> Are you seriously telling me that the m68k leaders are publicly
> repudiating egcs?
As used for compiling a `stable' distribution; yes, and FWIW I agree
with him.
"egcs is an experimental step in the development of GCC, the GNU C
compiler."[2]
> I personally think any distribution compiling things with 2.8 is
> more broken, [...]
Jes wasn't suggesting 2.8; rather 2.7.x.[3]
> Events have given me a chance to rethink my decision. I'm currently
> waiting for gcc 2.8.1 and egcs 1.0.2 to appear. If 2.8.1 will
> compile the kernel (through behavior or documentation changes ;), I
> will consider it back in the running. I won't ship a compiler with
> debian which can't compile the kernel.
I agree, it would be very broken to do so. So why not stick with a
compiler we *know* compiles the kernel (2.7.2.3)? :-)
> I like the egcs development model, and think that using it as our
> default compiler would give them a lot of moral support.
IMHO we shouldn't sacrifice the safety of our C compiler for the
dubious goal of giving the egcs team moral support.
> Speak soon or forever hold your peace...
I really didn't intend to make this much of an issue out of it, which
is why this was {originally} private mail. If you want to make egcs
the default Debian compiler, that won't actually affect m68k, since
we'll just ``be slow to compile egcs'' and carry on using gcc.
[1] Non-i386 architectures can and will use their own compiler
(e.g. everyone but m68k already is IIRC).
[2] <URL:http://www.cygnus.com/egcs/>
"egcs project home page"
[3] Though for m68k, 2.8 probably makes more sense, it doesn't have
the same problems as i386 with regards to kernel compilation, and
has more (m68k) development weight behind it than egcs.
--
James
--
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: