Ciaran McCreesh posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted below, on Wed, 04 Jan 2006 08:44:18 +0000:
> On Wed, 4 Jan 2006 09:32:44 +0100 Dirk Heinrichs > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > | Am Mittwoch, 4. Januar 2006 09:16 schrieb ext Ciaran McCreesh: > | > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > | > | So my question is: Would it be a good idea to generally turn GCC > | > | into split ebuilds (like KDE/X.org)? Pros/Cons? > | > > | > Sure, that'd be nice. It's also impossible, but don't let that stop > | > you from trying. > | > | Could you explain why it is impossible? > > GCC does not have a nice clean build system, nor does it have a nice > clean modular setup that allows you to pick and choose language > frontends (or arch backends) at anything other than compile time. It's > just not designed to let you provide gcc-frontend-c, gcc-frontend-c++, > gcc-backend-x86-linux etc packages. That begs the question... how is it then possible for gcj/java, gnat/ada and the like? Are some languages treated differently upstream? (Curious users want to know! <g>) -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman in http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2004/12/22/rms_interview.html -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
