This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GCC 4.4.0 Status Report (2009-03-13)
- From: Joern Rennecke <amylaar at spamcop dot net>
- To: Richard Kenner <kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu>
- Cc: gdr at integrable-solutions dot net, Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot com, bonzini at gnu dot org, dave dot korn dot cygwin at googlemail dot com, dberlin at dberlin dot org, dje dot gcc at gmail dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, law at redhat dot com, mark at codesourcery dot com, rguenther at suse dot de, stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com
- Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2009 16:01:38 -0400
- Subject: Re: GCC 4.4.0 Status Report (2009-03-13)
What's the evidence to the contrary? When else has the FSF made a
request that affects *development* as opposed to a release (other than
licensing and issues affecting the principle of free software, which
everybody agrees they have a right to)?
i386-unknown-lignux ; this broke unified tree builds since gcc
wouldn't agree with binutils and newlib on the configuration.
i386-pc-linux-gnu made it worse from a functionality standpoint
because suddenly we went from host/target triplets to host/target
quadruplets.
i386-pc-linux_gnu would have fit much better in the old scheme.
But the main issue back then was really the lack of coordination
with other projects and the lack of a staged transition plan.