From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Mikael Karpberg <karpen@ocean.campus.luth.se>
To: law@cygnus.com
Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD, egcs@cygnus.com
Subject: Re: GCC
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 15:25:00 -0000
Message-id: <199805122117.XAA01539@ocean.campus.luth.se>
References: <6664.894313440@hurl.cygnus.com>
X-SW-Source: 1998-05/msg00423.html

According to Jeffrey A Law:
>   > My statement above applies to C++.  For C, I'd say gcc 2.8.1 seems fine.
> I suspect egcs-1.0.x to be more stable than 2.8.1 for C code too, but
> the cases where one would notice are more obscure.
> 
> For example we've fixed quite a few bugs exposed by glibc.  Most of
> the bugs are probably in gcc-2.8.1.  The symptoms of those bugs are
> such that folks are less likely to notice them.

Ok... so I'm very much behind in my email flood, but, I have to ask this since
no one else did:

I have read duscussions on the FreeBSD lists that EGCS have to be compiled
differently to handle threaded and non-threaded compilation, IIRC.
gcc does "gcc" or "gcc -pthread". That alone would make GCC lightyears
better then EGCS. Anything but a runtime option is just not even considerable.

The question now goes, is this true?
And if so:
  When is that serious malfunction due to die, or when did it die? :-)

  /Mikael