Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10 ?

Tom Rini
2000-11-02T00:30:18Z

On Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 05:11:58PM -0700, Nathan Paul Simons wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 03:29:15PM -0800, David S. Miller wrote:
> > Please get your facts straight.
> >
> > The rest of this thread will show you that this is not a "Red Hat
> > thing". Connectiva, Mandrake, and others do the same thing. In fact
> > we choose the name "kgcc" to match the convention set by these other
> > distributions.
>
> So other distro's did it too. Why did nobody complain till RedHat
> did it? Because no one else decided to use, as the default, a bleeding edge
> compiler that not only won't compile the kernel but won't even touch a lot of
> userspace code either.

That's not quite true. gcc 2.96/7 isn't bad. It's just not intended for use
on production systems. But, it has a lot of things that people will have to
get used to for gcc 3.0. It also has a more robust/not-as-sucky C++ abi.
RedHat decided haveing a g++ that sucks less and including more compat
libraries in 7.1/whatever was worth it. I don't think so, but I'm not RedHat
:)

The idea of kgcc isn't a new one. It's been around, unoffically, since Linus
said "Ok, I'd recommend people use X compiler". It's now a more formal idea
and most x86 distributions have one now.
/me is glad he has more PPC boxes then x86 ones.

--
Tom Rini (TR1265)