sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List
List archive
- From: Arwed von Merkatz <v.merkatz AT gmx.net>
- To: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] split gcc spells
- Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 18:31:58 +0200
On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 09:17:46AM -0700, Eric Sandall wrote:
> Quoting Arwed von Merkatz <v.merkatz AT gmx.net>:
> > 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?
>
> Well, the main gain is that if a user wants to add Ada they don't have to
> recompile gcc, g++, etc. just to get another language, or to remove one, for
> that matter. And now packages (such as some in science and elsewhere) can
> directly depend on a language they need (such as g77).
>
> -sandalle
That's how i'd like it to work, but it doesn't seem to be possible to
split the actual compilers.
--
Arwed v. Merkatz Source Mage GNU/Linux developer
http://www.sourcemage.org
-
[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.