Re: g++2.8, egcs, gcc 2.7.2, etc. - *very confused*
On Wed, Dec 09, 1998 at 00:13:16 -0500, Ed Cogburn wrote:
> > >Read /usr/doc/gcc/README.Debian .
> It didn't say *why* we have an apparent fork in compiler development.
It doesn't contain a full history of the free software movement either, as
that's out of scope for that document too.
> Since the gcc compiler is at the core of Linux (behind only the kernel
> itself in importance), having a semi-permanent fork in development, ala
> emacs/xemacs, is the last thing we need.
First, forks aren't necessarily bad. Read e.g.
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/sane98-talk.ps or ESR's
writings.
The EGCS project has brought nearly all of gcc's lost children together
again. That's progress.
Second, de facto there is no fork. The FSF gcc development is dead (or at
least smelling /very/ funny), though the FSF doesn't admit it yet. EGCS is
alive and well.
[As a small example, FSF gcc 2.8.1's C++ handling is more or less the same
as EGCS 1.0.x's. Of the C++ bugs reported against Debian's EGCS 1.0.3 g++
package, half were fixed in EGCS 1.1, in a period shorter than a Debian
release cycle. 2.8.1 is still the latest FSF gcc.]
Ray
--
LEADERSHIP A form of self-preservation exhibited by people with auto-
destructive imaginations in order to ensure that when it comes to the crunch
it'll be someone else's bones which go crack and not their own.
- The Hipcrime Vocab by Chad C. Mulligan
Reply to: