FreeTDS Development Group

[James Cameron <cameron AT stl.dec.com>]

"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