David O'Brien wrote:
> > > > And we all know how successful that was, right?
> > >
> > > On the other side, we all know how successfull we were trying to get GCC
> > > 2.95.x bugs fixed for us, right? Do you really want to repeat this
> > > deeply satisfying experiment again?
> > That was because the patches were not being submitted back
> > against the unadulterated distribution code someone who had
> > signed the assignment of rights to the FSF.
> Blah Terry, TOTALLY 110% INCORRECT. The situation was the same as our
> FreeBSD 3.x users that still post PR's against RELENG_3 and want us to
> fix things. Even where there was complete patches against 2.94.3
> available; the issue for the GCC people was one of not willing to spend
> the effort to re-test on all platforms. Same reason we don't upgrade
> RELENG_3 to the latest openssl (or any other lib) -- who knows what else
> would break that depended on version that is there now.
I thought that this was true for the LD, but not true for the
GCC. I think this is a different problem here, since this
was a specific reference to GCC 2.95.
I definitely agree that this was an issue for the linker; the
2.95 was, I thought, never that much out of date, at the time
the FreeBSD specific patches were initially made.
> > The inability to get patches into 2.95 is totally unrelated
> > to the fact that it was an older GCC, and completely related
> > to the fact that the patches were not submitted in accordance
> > with the GCC maintainer's guidelines,
> WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG !!!
It *was* an older GCC?!? Now I'm confused. We *are* talking
about the a.out shared library support, right?
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message