Re: gcc or cc?

[Michael Stone <mstone@itri.loyola.edu>]

Quoting J.H.M. Dassen Ray" (jdassen@wi.leidenuniv.nl):
> On Fri, Nov 27, 1998 at 13:00:58 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > AFAIK we tell developers to use cc, not gcc to compile programs. But in
> > 4.1 the policy insists on using gcc. So it's not easy to compile all
> > packages automatically with another compiler (like egcc).
> 
> I think we have two goals here:
> - Make the developers use gcc for building C code in packages. [*]
> [*] The libc6 __register_frame_info situation clearly shows what horrors can
>   result from using the wrong compiler (in this case: /usr/local/bin).
>   IMO, we should be looking for a more complete specification of the 
>   environment in which packages are built, and incorporate that in a tool
>   like "build". Treating all architectures as ports, and using a dedicated
>   set of build systems (with a standard environment setting) would be ideal
>   for this, but that's not attainable yet.

I think that's a bogus argument; a broken gcc in /usr/local/bin would
cause the same problem. It would perhaps be best to plan for the future:
once kernel 2.2 is released, there's no reason why a system couldn't be
exclusively egcs (i.e., no gcc). Why create an artificial dependency on
gcc?

Mike Stone