This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GCC 4.4.0 Status Report (2009-03-13)
- From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>
- To: Joel Sherrill <joel dot sherrill at oarcorp dot com>
- Cc: NightStrike <nightstrike at gmail dot com>, Joe Buck <Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot com>, Richard Kenner <kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu>, "bonzini at gnu dot org" <bonzini at gnu dot org>, "dave dot korn dot cygwin at googlemail dot com" <dave dot korn dot cygwin at googlemail dot com>, "dberlin at dberlin dot org" <dberlin at dberlin dot org>, "dje dot gcc at gmail dot com" <dje dot gcc at gmail dot com>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "law at redhat dot com" <law at redhat dot com>, "mark at codesourcery dot com" <mark at codesourcery dot com>, "rguenther at suse dot de" <rguenther at suse dot de>, "stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com" <stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com>
- Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 08:05:31 -0500
- Subject: Re: GCC 4.4.0 Status Report (2009-03-13)
- References: <email@example.com> <20090322050024.GA18893@synopsys.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <10903221258.AA04666@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> <email@example.com> <10903221441.AA05218@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20090323063854.GB22165@synopsys.com> <email@example.com> <49C77166.firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 6:24 AM, Joel Sherrill
> NightStrike wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 2:38 AM, Joe Buck <Joe.Buck@synopsys.com> wrote:
>>> GCC uses are the ones developed in the egcs days. ?Remember the old
>>> days when the location of the development tree and the snapshots was
>>> a secret, and people were threatened with banning if they let it out?
>> Are you serious? ?Why would it be handled that way?
> I don't know either but this was another part of the egcs
> move to the bazaar that seems obvious in retrospect.
> Given what gcc is now, it is hard to believe that the
> gcc testsuites, Standard C++ libraries and the
> other language support that existed at that time was
> all in separately maintained and distributed pieces.
> You were individually responsible for assembling the
> pieces if you wanted a C++ compiler. ?Hard to believe
> but that's the way it was.
yes, that was a nightmare.