Sven Luther <sven.luther at wanadoo.fr> writes: > On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 09:53:08PM +0100, Peter FELECAN wrote: >> Ken Mays <maybird1776 at yahoo.com> writes: >> >> > Tested cross-compiler effort: >> > binutils-2.16.1 - good >> > gcc 3.3.6 - no >> > gcc 3.4.5 - good (optional) >> > gcc 4.1.0 - good (recommended) >> > >> > I'll tend to use gcc 4.1.0 and work my way through CVS as needed. Should be >> > able to use this with other platforms as well for current NV (ON) builds... >> >> Sorry to repeat myself but gcc 4 branch is not of production grade; > > All major linux distributions are going to use gcc 4.0 for their > next release, this includes at least debian, fedora core and ubuntu > that i know of, and some of them have a release goal of a few month > away only. I suppose suse is also in this group, so i have some > doubts about your comments concerning the maturity of gcc 4.0.
Sven, As you know, any tool also has a subjective quality. My appreciation is in this category and based on regular reading of gcc related mailing lists and bug reports. That all the bleeding edge Linux distributions wish to use the latest shining compiler is something that I understand but doesn't impose the same attitude in our project. We need something stable and having this positively perceived quality, subjective as it is, I admit, and the 3.4 branch is of this bread. > Also, about cross compilers, i wonder if you know of dan kegel's > crosstool project, and if so, if you managed to get it to run on > whatever you use as build host (x86/solaris i suppose) ? I'm aware of this and other projects in the domain. My goal is to have a cross tool from x86 *and* SPARC. See also my other message in the thread. -- Peter
