Well, actually, I *wasn't* asking for an upgrade.
>From recent experience it is my estimation that a gcc upgrade sets 5.0 development back a month (that is, the last GCC upgrade kept *me* from working productively for around a month due to various this thats and the others). If that's what people want, that's fine. I could also be totally wrong, and this won't break things. I'm just a bit startled that this appears out of nowhere (I sure don't recall it being discussed) and just happens, with 10 minutes warning. This is, IMO, why FreeBSD is not going to be very successful. You cannot just make major toolchain changes w/o at least *some* belief that this is going to be done well. Did you do a dryrun with the import before checking things in? I don't mean to be hypercritical here, but I feel that it's fair, considering people are starting to really whine about how late 5.0 actually *is* at this point, to begin to ask not even the *hard* questions, but medium firm questions about "gee, is this trip *really* necessary?" -matt On Sun, 1 Sep 2002, Alexander Kabaev wrote: > On Sun, 1 Sep 2002 14:34:12 -0700 (PDT) > Matthew Jacob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > So, what is it about gcc 3.2 that's so important, considering that we > > wanted to do a real 5.0 release within 2 months? > > Some well known problem present in our current GCC snapshot appear to be > fixed in 3.2. > > GCC 3.2 is using vendor-independent C++ ABI. Assuming they got it right > this time, this will allow us to upgrade to 3.3 more painlessly later. > > People who were asking for an upgrade got what they deserved :) > > -- > Alexander Kabaev > To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
