This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] Fix PR target/16304: AIX 4.x forward reference proble
- From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- To: John David Anglin <dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca>
- Cc: dje at watson dot ibm dot com, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, china at thewrittenword dot com
- Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 07:48:46 -0800
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix PR target/16304: AIX 4.x forward reference proble
- Organization: CodeSourcery, LLC
- References: <200501030738.j037cdeP014845@hiauly1.hia.nrc.ca>
John David Anglin wrote:
GCC releases often require newer versions of Binutils, GDB, or
Glibc. Without it, GCC may not build or be fully operational. A
GNU/Linux distributor may not support a system without the default system
toolchain, requiring a complete system upgrade and new license for
support. This does not seem different than the AIX situation to me.
The one difference is that AIX is not free software.
I'm not sure how that's relevant.
From the FSF's point of view (which is not the same as my personal
opinion) AIX's non-freeness immediately makes it less important.
For some reason, I spent the past couple of days trying to work
through various bugs on the vax. I believe that I now have a set
of patches that will allow a full bootstrap except for the Ada
runtime on the 3.3 and 3.4 branches. Thus, it's possible to keep
old systems going if there's a will.
Defintely true. And I agree with your point that there's a balance
between the cost of any particular port and the benefits it provides.
In the particular case of AIX 4.3, I really don't know enough to comment