Re: RFD : libg++/gcc/egcs upgrades needed for libc6 (READ ME)
mdorman@debian.org wrote:
>
> Unfortunately, egcs has more development weight than gcc for *all of
> our other* architectures, sparc, alpha, i386 and powerpc. Also, I
> have gotten things to compile with egcs that simply do not compile
> with gcc-2.7.2.3 on alpha. Of course, emacs20 didn't compile with
> egcs, so there's obviously some tradeoffs.
I would tend to agree with this, which is why I had brought this topic
up in the past. I have found ALOT of packages that simply will not
compile with any other compiler but egcs on the Alpha. I have run into
a few minor problems here and there with egcs since the switch, but
nothing that I couldn't easily work around (as opposed to gcc-2.8.0,
which would spit out hundreds of problems). I'm not terribly
up-to-speed with what's going on with the powerpc, sparc, or m68k ports,
so I admit I'm a little biased on this subject, but I do feel that egcs
is a strong candidate IF it is decided that we need an "official"
compiler.
I also have gotten emacs20 to compile with egcs on the Alpha and have
uploaded the package, btw :-)
> We don't have a libg++ for anything but 2.7.2.3, and since we have at
> least one Debian system-specific tool (menu) that uses it, it would
> look bad to move away from that compiler.
> Once there's a libg++, and once egcs-1.0.2, which is supposed to be
> c++ compatible with 2.8.X, then architectures should be easily able to
> choose.
Good idea.
Chris
--
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: