Re: Quo vadis, -CURRENT? (recent changes to cc & compatibility)
From: Steve Kargl (sgk_at_troutmask.apl.washington.edu)
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 09:56:45 -0700 To: Michael Nottebrock <email@example.com>
On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 05:23:55PM +0200, Michael Nottebrock wrote:
> Steve Kargl wrote:
> >I have no problems in building the traditional C "hello world"
> >program with "cc -pedantic".
> You're right about that, you'll need a C++ hello world (<iostream>, cout).
> This is in the archives anyway and (should be) well known.
Yes, it is a well known issue. The user is getting exactly
what they wanted when she gave -pedantic to g++.
> >>(why could
> >>this change not have been made _after_ 4.9 is out the door, btw.? Or
> >>before 5.0-R FWIW.)
> >4.9 and 5.0-R are independent branch. By your logic we should wait to
> >4.10 or 4.11 or 4.12 or ... before any substantial change can be made
> >to -CURRENT.
> The point is that is isn't wise to commit a change like the -pthread
> deprecation that breaks many ports just before a ports-freeze.
Which threads library should -pthread link to your app (libc_r,
libkse, or libthr) on a 5.x system?
> >The reason gcc-3.3.1 was committed before 5.0-R should
> >be fairly obvious.
> I was concerned with the -pthread deprecation.
Why? The portmgr can tag the ports collection at any point in
time before or after the -pthread deprecation date. Additionally,
your initial email started with your whining about -pedantic a
and "Hello world" programs, which is completely orthogonal to
-- Steve _______________________________________________ firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "email@example.com"