On Thu, 02 Nov 2000 06:46:04 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
> I've been following this kgcc discussion with interest for weeks now and
> there's
> one thing that still puzzles me. Everyone on both sides of the issue seems to
> be saying that kgcc (AKA egcs 1.1.2) is used because the gcc versions shipped
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Wrong assumption. The idea is if I need a way to set a compiler for kernel
that is not the same compiler as the system wide one. Should kernel Makefiles
use gcc (hardcoded) (and people must have a 'gcc' that works for kernel), or
let kernel use something called 'kgcc', and let user decide if in his machine
kgcc is 2.7, egcs or 2.95.2.
> by
> several vendors don't compile the kernel correctly. What I haven't seen yet
> is
> an explanation of why kgcc can't be used for compiling *everything* and why
> another compiler even needs to be installed.
Because gcc is not only the C compiler, is the full compiler system.
The support for C++ in 2.95 has nothing to do with egcs. And 2.95 supports
java, for example.
And the libraries. The C++ standard library is much better in 2.95 that in
egcs.
--
Juan Antonio Magallon Lacarta mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
