Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!constellation!convex!convex!convex!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!usenet.coe.montana.edu!bsd.coe.montana.edu!nate From: nate@bsd.coe.montana.edu (Nate Williams) Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.questions Subject: Re: Compiling Kernel with GCC-2: How, exactly? Date: 25 Jul 1993 19:40:50 GMT Organization: Montana State University Lines: 32 Message-ID: <22unk2$4po@pdq.coe.montana.edu> References: <1993Jul22.011943.26148@husc14.harvard.edu> <1993Jul22.100311.24391@cm.cf.ac.uk> <HALEY.93Jul24163021@husc10.harvard.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: bsd.coe.montana.edu In article <HALEY.93Jul24163021@husc10.harvard.edu> haley@husc10.harvard.edu (Elizabeth Haley) writes: >I find it somewhat disturbing that the plan is take apart the gcc >distribution, though I can thoroughly understand the need to have a >smaller dist. I can also understand wanting to get rid of all the >files that pertain to other cpu's, though I would warn against a total >conversion to Berkeley style make, because I'm sure there are a few >intrepid adveturers out there who will make a cross-compiler, since >they have access to other machines... If they want to x-compile, then put the version of gcc you have on another host and configure it for *BSD. (But why should we penalize the 95% of the rest of the users who just want a compiler to compile things locally?) > >One question: What version of gcc 1 are you going to distribute? The stock compiler, as it has been hacked by CSRG, and it is a known quantity. You really don't want to go change all the compiler's, as you have no known quantities to compare against that way. (And gcc2 is NOW just officially out of BETA release) Nate -- nate@bsd.coe.montana.edu | In the middle of it ........ again. nate@cs.montana.edu | Running/supporting one of many freely available work #: (406) 994-4836 | Operating Systems for [34]86 machines. home #: (406) 586-0579 | (based on Net/2, name changes all the time :-)