Re: gcc or cc?

["J.H.M. Dassen \(Ray\)" <jdassen@wi.leidenuniv.nl>]

On Fri, Nov 27, 1998 at 13:00:58 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> AFAIK we tell developers to use cc, not gcc to compile programs. But in
> 4.1 the policy insists on using gcc. So it's not easy to compile all
> packages automatically with another compiler (like egcc).

I think we have two goals here:
- Make the developers use gcc for building C code in packages. [*]
- Make it easy for users to compile with a different compiler

One way to do this would be to specify "CC=cc" in the manuals _and_ specify
that cc should be a symlink to gcc on machines that are used to build
packages, but this leaves room for human error.

Ray

[*] The libc6 __register_frame_info situation clearly shows what horrors can
  result from using the wrong compiler (in this case: /usr/local/bin).
  IMO, we should be looking for a more complete specification of the 
  environment in which packages are built, and incorporate that in a tool
  like "build". Treating all architectures as ports, and using a dedicated
  set of build systems (with a standard environment setting) would be ideal
  for this, but that's not attainable yet.
-- 
Cyberspace, a final frontier. These are the voyages of my messages, 
on a lightspeed mission to explore strange new systems and to boldly go
where no data has gone before.