Jan Stocker wrote:
[ ... DWARF vs. setjmp/longjmp ... ]
> A little bit... most of you argumenting about binary incompatibility
> for -stable. OK... no chance to do it there, its my opinion too. But why not
> doing it for current and using that most common dwarf unwinding now (for a
> later ia64 port it should be faster than setjump i think). Okay everything
> needs a recompile but this -current is current and not a production os.
> You're right that we need a patch for -stable. But if we take the approach
> for -current maybe we leave these problems behind us and following the path
> of the rank and file (using dwarf2) and making profit of their experience
> versus doing this ourself and creating patches.
I guess it's possible to change over entirely. That would
mean we would loase a.out support because the GNU tools are
becoming incapable of supporting a.out ("all machines we
run on are Linux machines" syndrome).
If we really wanted to avoid problems like this in the future,
we'd just scrap FreeBSD entirely, and go to Linux, a bit at a
time, starting with ELF, then DWARF2 exceptions, and then
the Linux ABI instead of the FreeBSD ABI, and then all of Linux,
a piece at a time.
PS: If I sound annoyed, it's because it's sometimes annoying
to have your toolchain controlled by someone with an interest
in a product that competes with yours; that works for people
competing with Microsoft products on Microsoft platforms with
a need to use Microsoft tools, and it applies to Cygnus being
owned by RedHat and them controlling the FreeBSD tools.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message