This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [jakub@redhat.com: Re: 2.95.4, sparc64 issues ?]
On Mon, Sep 10, 2001 at 01:01:24PM -0400, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2001 at 06:58:44PM +0200, Marc Espie wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 10, 2001 at 12:52:47PM -0400, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > > As stated, it was not part of any compiler released by FSF.
> > > The tested configurations are gcc-2.96-RH, there is a patch floating around
> > > for 3.0 and finally it was commited into trunk after 3.0 was branched off.
> >
> > So, this means that there won't be any released version of gcc actually
> > running somewhat correctly on sparc64 for yet a year at least, right ?
>
> 3.1 is scheduled for March I think.
Oops, sorry. I sincerely hope it meets the schedule this time. Okay, still
six months away. And still one year for us. I don't expect 3.1 to be
reasonably bug-free... and March is much too close to our release schedule
for switching compilers at that point. So, for OpenBSD, that means no
3.1.x before december release. Over a year away.
> Anyway, what prevents you from running 32-bit programs on top of 64-bit
> kernel? That's what Linux does for quite some time.
> You only need 64-bit compiler for the kernel.
Oh sure. Use one compiler for the kernel and another compiler for userland.
Get real. This kind of double the number of bugs that exist. Plus double
the maintenance.
Besides, stylistically, it's disgusting.