This is the mail archive of the
ecos-discuss@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the eCos project.
Re: gcc3
- To: Fabrice Gautier <Fabrice_Gautier at sdesigns dot com>
- Subject: Re: [ECOS] gcc3
- From: Jonathan Larmour <jlarmour at redhat dot com>
- Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 05:50:30 +0100
- Cc: Wade Jensen <Wade_Jensen at inter-tel dot com>,ecos-discuss at sources dot redhat dot com
- References: <B1F6452C89AFD411AE0800A0CC734C2301510E@EMAIL1>
Fabrice Gautier wrote:
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jonathan Larmour [mailto:jlarmour@redhat.com]
> > Subject: Re: [ECOS] gcc3
> >
> > Depends which target. Although I could ask: why do you want
> > to avoid 2.95?
>
> 'cause gcc 3 has a new ARM backend ? (supposedly better...)
>
> 'cause gcc 3.x will very soon generate Dwarf2 frame info (which mean you
> will be abble to debug optimized code which don't have frame pointer ... as
> soon as gdb support it - works in progress also)
>
> 'cause i'm sure there is a lot of other things done better in 3
I'm just trying to deter people from using it if all they want is _any_
compiler. If they think it's worth going through a few extra hoops, then
that's okay :).
> 'cause we want to break eCos anyway :-)
Nah, eCos is *designed* to be breakable :-). [1]
Jifl
[1] Think "for (i=0;;i+=4) *i=1;"
--
Red Hat, Rustat House, Clifton Road, Cambridge, UK. Tel: +44 (1223) 271062
Maybe this world is another planet's Hell -Aldous Huxley || Opinions==mine