From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: hjl@lucon.org (H.J. Lu) To: jbuck@Synopsys.COM (Joe Buck) Cc: egcs@egcs.cygnus.com Subject: Re: egcs and linux Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 20:13:00 -0000 Message-id: In-reply-to: < 199902161756.JAA18794@atrus.synopsys.com > from "Joe Buck" at Feb 16, 99 09:56:28 am References: <199902161756.JAA18794@atrus.synopsys.com> X-SW-Source: 1999-02/msg00771.html > > HJ writes: > > I have no problems with making Linux versions of egcs. I am > > used to it by now :-). > > But I do have a problem with it. (That is, I do have a problem with the > notion that the version delivered by the egcs team won't work on Linux, > and that Linux users will have to download a separate HJ version to have > a working compiler). Since you provide binary releases and encourage > people to use them, it's a step away from the notion of free software I encourage people to apply my patch before using egcs on Linux. I don't want to make binaries. But I am asked to do so. > for the community to share and improve. It conveys the idea that only > wizards like HJ should attempt to compile the compiler. > I don't want to make Linux specific egcs. But it seems to me that I am the only one who will spend time and effort to make egcs work right under Linux. To do that, you do need to know the details about C/C++ libraries and how they work with egcs. BTW, Linux/ARM and Linux/MIPS need a compiler/linker/assembler. I do support them in my Linux releases of egcs and binutils. I will be more than happy to see egcs 1.1.2 support them out of box. Will that be possible? I really doubt it. I don't think egcs has that kind of commitments to Linux and I don't expect it to. -- H.J. Lu (hjl@gnu.org) From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: hjl@lucon.org (H.J. Lu) To: jbuck@Synopsys.COM (Joe Buck) Cc: egcs@egcs.cygnus.com Subject: Re: egcs and linux Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 22:53:00 -0000 Message-ID: References: <199902161756.JAA18794@atrus.synopsys.com> X-SW-Source: 1999-02n/msg00769.html Message-ID: <19990228225300.5K9h46bMYg1-Nge4p5kuGnKR_-jLFgFZI-MB0czAJoI@z> > > HJ writes: > > I have no problems with making Linux versions of egcs. I am > > used to it by now :-). > > But I do have a problem with it. (That is, I do have a problem with the > notion that the version delivered by the egcs team won't work on Linux, > and that Linux users will have to download a separate HJ version to have > a working compiler). Since you provide binary releases and encourage > people to use them, it's a step away from the notion of free software I encourage people to apply my patch before using egcs on Linux. I don't want to make binaries. But I am asked to do so. > for the community to share and improve. It conveys the idea that only > wizards like HJ should attempt to compile the compiler. > I don't want to make Linux specific egcs. But it seems to me that I am the only one who will spend time and effort to make egcs work right under Linux. To do that, you do need to know the details about C/C++ libraries and how they work with egcs. BTW, Linux/ARM and Linux/MIPS need a compiler/linker/assembler. I do support them in my Linux releases of egcs and binutils. I will be more than happy to see egcs 1.1.2 support them out of box. Will that be possible? I really doubt it. I don't think egcs has that kind of commitments to Linux and I don't expect it to. -- H.J. Lu (hjl@gnu.org)