| 1 |
Hi guys. |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
Yes this would make for a very interesting investigation ;). |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
Just a small opinion here: |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
On Friday 29 November 2002 11:22, Per Wigren wrote: |
| 8 |
> Friday 29 November 2002 19:43 skrev Karl Trygve Kalleberg: |
| 9 |
> > On Fri, 29 Nov 2002 18:41:12 +0100 |
| 10 |
[skipped] |
| 11 |
> I don't know about XFree, but I don't think there should be a problem.. TCC |
| 12 |
> supports 100% of ANSI-C, 90% of C99-specific things and the most common |
| 13 |
> GCC-extensions.. I read somewhere that they pass all test but 10 or so in |
| 14 |
> GCC's testsuite (which has THOUSANDS of tests!).. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
So this does have a potential for breakage in various packages. Even if it |
| 17 |
were 100% gcc compatible we shouldn't trust it without doing a really |
| 18 |
extensive testing. Besides many people will choose to have a "more coherent" |
| 19 |
system based solely on gcc and will be glad to pay the price in compile time. |
| 20 |
Therefore I think use of tcc should be made optional (even opt-in in the |
| 21 |
beginning if you ask me). New use flag suits this very well and I think is |
| 22 |
completely warranted (and for the same reason I do not like putting this into |
| 23 |
DEPEND). |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
George |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives