From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10454 invoked by alias); 23 Jan 2012 01:01:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 10446 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Jan 2012 01:01:00 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from virtual.bogons.net (HELO virtual.bogons.net) (193.178.223.136) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 01:00:41 +0000 Received: from jifvik.dyndns.org (jifvik.dyndns.org [85.158.45.40]) by virtual.bogons.net (8.10.2+Sun/8.11.2) with ESMTP id q0N10d103177; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 01:00:39 GMT Received: from lert.jifvik.org (lert.jifvik.org [172.31.1.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by jifvik.dyndns.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D0F53FE1; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 01:00:39 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <4F1CB136.8070008@jifvik.org> Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 01:01:00 -0000 From: Jonathan Larmour User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.15) Gecko/20101027 Fedora/3.0.10-1.fc12 Lightning/1.0b2pre Thunderbird/3.0.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stanislav Meduna Cc: ecos-devel@ecos.sourceware.org Subject: Re: Gnutools: consideration for upgrade to GCC 4.6 References: <4F106345.4080902@siva.com.mk> <4F11574D.9070002@dallaway.org.uk> <4F13478E.2040106@meduna.org> In-Reply-To: <4F13478E.2040106@meduna.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact ecos-devel-help@ecos.sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: ecos-devel-owner@ecos.sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2012-01/txt/msg00033.txt.bz2 On 15/01/12 21:39, Stanislav Meduna wrote: > >> The third, Why we should avoid to say that eCos is also well known, >> widely used OS? >> ... >> Look on that as a promotion eCos OS. > > Does the specification of a target OS belong to a compiler at all? > Is there anything the compiler itself does differently for eCos > than for Linux or RTEMS (that is not covered by other flags)? > If yes, go ahead. If not, frankly, I think that 'promotion' or > 'others do it' is a bogus reason for hardcoding something into > a compiler binary, so I'd only do this if there is a technical > reason for it (IMHO of course). Yes there are things the compiler does differently depending on the runtime it's built with, but the compiler expects something that looks like newlib, and eCos is close enough to that in enough ways that it doesn't matter. Jifl