sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List
List archive
- From: "Sergey A. Lipnevich" <sergey AT optimaltec.com>
- To: Arwed von Merkatz <v.merkatz AT gmx.net>
- Cc: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] split gcc spells
- Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 23:00:46 -0400
I think not having libstdc++ if you don't need it justifies it. Same for gcj: now it's moot because nobody's really using gcj but it's gaining ground in compliance with Java 2 standard so eventually that is going to change. Remember, some crazy heads have been able to run Eclipse on it? But it is one of the longest compiles in the entire gcc suite.
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?
-
[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.