Re: experimental gcc-2.95.3 and gcc-2.97 (20001224)

[Daniel Jacobowitz <dan@debian.org>]

On Mon, Dec 25, 2000 at 06:18:33AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Ben Collins writes:
>  > >  > PLEASE hardcode it!  That's a pretty stiff disadvantage.
>  > > 
>  > > Done. So each architecture has to decide, which one to use as the default.
>  > 
>  > How is the default setup?
> 
> Default compilers are from the 2.95.3 package.
> 
>  > With alternatives?
> 
> No alternatives are used. That was my understanding of hardcoding.
> 
>  > Are the alternative priorities set on a per arch basis?
> 
> That was my intention to have.
> 
> Currently the gcc-2.95.2 package has binaries {c89,gcc,gcov}{,-2.95}.
> g++-2.95.2 has binaries g++-2.95 and g++. gcc-2.97 has the gcc-2.97
> binary and g++-2.97 the g++-2.97 binary. Both gcc-2.9x and g++-2.9x
> packages provide an alternative cc/c++. By using gcc/g++ you get the
> default compiler per architecture.

So cc can be the one or the other, but gcc will be fixed by
architecture?  That doesn't seem to make sense.  A lot of packages just
use cc to build.

Dan

/--------------------------------\  /--------------------------------\
|       Daniel Jacobowitz        |__|        SCS Class of 2002       |
|   Debian GNU/Linux Developer    __    Carnegie Mellon University   |
|         dan@debian.org         |  |       dmj+@andrew.cmu.edu      |
\--------------------------------/  \--------------------------------/