why gnot gnu?
James Cameron
cameron at stl.dec.com
Mon May 21 02:15:03 EDT 2001
"James K. Lowden" wrote:
> What should the target be here, as far as FreeTDS is concerned?
Portable source.
> What advantage is it to you to use the Tru64 UNIX compiler instead of
> gcc?
Efficient code compiled for the Alpha processor. No need to download
and install gcc. Compiles faster. Saves time in many ways.
> Don't you use other GPL software that requires gcc?
Not really. Most other GPL code is written in portable ANSI C.
> I bet you're going to tell me the answer is terribly obvious, that you
> can't link gcc output using your linker.
Never tried that! Should work though, I guess.
> It's a matter of bringing FreeTDS into the fold, so you
> can use it in your environment, one that gcc hasn't conquered yet.
Very inspiration, I like it. Not really why I mentioned the issue
though.
> And now, in case I haven't done so already, let me ask a dumb
> question. You've figured this out, patched whatever you needed to to
> get things working. What stands between what you've done and a
> ./configure script that would work "out of the box" with both
> compilers? Why not pursue that?
Steve Langasek touched on this ... the problem is with automake's
macros, not the FreeTDS configure script. I was mentioning the problem
in passing in order to explain something else that was being asked. It
is not critical; I just re-run automake and autoconf on any package that
triggers the problem. If anything, if it continues to be a problem it
is automake I should be pushing the patch to, not FreeTDS.
--
James Cameron
More information about the FreeTDS
mailing list