Re: gcc or cc?

[Anders Hammarquist <iko@cd.chalmers.se>]

> 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. [*]

This is IMHO not a good idea. On the alpha architecture, gcc (at least 
2.7.2.x) is broken, and all Debian packages in the alpha dist are compiled 
with egcs. We should be using cc and have it be a symlink to a properly 
working compiler. Sparc has also begun moving to egcs as it works a lot better 
(not to mention the sparc64 people who don't have an option for 64bit 
userspace code).

> - 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.

Being able to change compilers is a good idea. Mandating that cc be a symlink 
to gcc is not.

Regards,
/Anders
-- 
 -- Of course I'm crazy, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong.
Anders Hammarquist                                  | iko@cd.chalmers.se
Not system administrator at DjungelData             | Hem: +46 31 47 69 27
Chalmers University of Technology, G|teborg, Sweden | Mob: +46 707 27 86 87