why gnot gnu?
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?
> What advantage is it to you to use the Tru64 UNIX compiler instead of
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
> 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.
More information about the FreeTDS