In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Ed Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>One of the issues with an alternative compiler is that you'll likely need
>to keep GCC and associated tools around anyway, for ports, kernels, and
>updates. Probably not a problem, but occasionally multiple tool chains
>can be a pain.
Make that a ``major pain''.
As I mentioned, `a compiler', all by itself, is generally not what people
who ask for `a compiler' want. Almost without exception, they also want
a full set of _compatible_ system include files, a _compatible_ set of
libraries, and usually also a _compatible_ source-level debugger.
Even though I haven't done this stuff for awhile, I still get calls on
occasion from people who want to contract me to do ``a GCC port'' to
some new processor they are building. More than 90% of the time, they
are under the impression that this is trivial 2 month job that any grad
student could do... and in a way, they are correct. When they ask me for
a quote, I ask them if the want a set of compatible header files, a
compatible set of libraries, and a compatible debugger too. Typically,
they tell me that they will have to check with someone else about these
things, and then I never hear from them again. I attribute this to their
realization that (a) there is a big difference between a `compiler' and a
complete `compilation system' and (b) that they really want a complete
compilation system and (c) they can't actually afford a complete compilation
system.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
