sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List
List archive
- From: Paul <dufflebunk AT dufflebunk.homeip.net>
- To: sm-discuss <sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org>
- Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] split gcc spells
- Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 11:54:13 -0400
We do gain the fact that when I decide to play with Objective C for a
few days, I don't have to wait a week for gcc to rebuild with the
compiler, and when I'm done, I dont' can remove the compiler I want.
Dito for gcj. Also, it helps pave the way for the future when we have
different classes of depends like compile time depends and runtime
depends.
Unn... have I even told you about that yet? It's been a long standing
occasional request on the "would be nice to have" list.
On Wed, 2004-30-06 at 16:58 +0200, Arwed von Merkatz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> could anyone enlighten me what we win with the split gcc spells compared
> to a single one? The user still has to choose the right compilers when
> casting the gcc spell, so nothing has changed there.
> As far as I can see all we get is a lot more maintenance for no real
> benefit, am I wrong there?
>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-
[SM-Discuss] split gcc spells,
Arwed von Merkatz, 06/30/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] split gcc spells,
Paul, 06/30/2004
- Re: [SM-Discuss] split gcc spells, Arwed von Merkatz, 06/30/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] split gcc spells,
Eric Sandall, 06/30/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] split gcc spells,
Arwed von Merkatz, 06/30/2004
- Re: [SM-Discuss] split gcc spells, Eric Sandall, 06/30/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] split gcc spells,
Arwed von Merkatz, 06/30/2004
- Re: [SM-Discuss] split gcc spells, Sergey A. Lipnevich, 06/30/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] split gcc spells,
Paul, 06/30/2004
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.