David O'Brien wrote: > > > > And we all know how successful that was, right? > > > > > > On the other side, we all know how successfull we were trying to get GCC > > > 2.95.x bugs fixed for us, right? Do you really want to repeat this > > > deeply satisfying experiment again? > > > > That was because the patches were not being submitted back > > against the unadulterated distribution code someone who had > > signed the assignment of rights to the FSF. > > Blah Terry, TOTALLY 110% INCORRECT. The situation was the same as our > FreeBSD 3.x users that still post PR's against RELENG_3 and want us to > fix things. Even where there was complete patches against 2.94.3 > available; the issue for the GCC people was one of not willing to spend > the effort to re-test on all platforms. Same reason we don't upgrade > RELENG_3 to the latest openssl (or any other lib) -- who knows what else > would break that depended on version that is there now.
I thought that this was true for the LD, but not true for the GCC. I think this is a different problem here, since this was a specific reference to GCC 2.95. I definitely agree that this was an issue for the linker; the 2.95 was, I thought, never that much out of date, at the time the FreeBSD specific patches were initially made. > > The inability to get patches into 2.95 is totally unrelated > > to the fact that it was an older GCC, and completely related > > to the fact that the patches were not submitted in accordance > > with the GCC maintainer's guidelines, > > WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG !!! It *was* an older GCC?!? Now I'm confused. We *are* talking about the a.out shared library support, right? -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
