Subject: Re: Can we trim the fat from gcc3, please?
To: Frederick Bruckman <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: grant beattie <email@example.com>
Date: 06/24/2003 22:23:36
On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 06:35:20AM -0500, Frederick Bruckman wrote:
> > it is far more bloated in terms of size on disk and memory footprint
> > than gcc2, and therefore inappropriate for some systems.
> Regarding memory requirements: what are you talking about -- are there
> still development systems with only 8mb of RAM? NetBSD 2.0 is going to
> be shipping gcc 3.3. Are you seriously suggesting that NetBSD 2.0
> users are going to want to install and use an older gcc compiler?
I'm not suggesting that NetBSD development systems are slow or
I just don't see any reason to remove the gcc2 package when it can be
more appropriate for some systems. eg. 32-bit Solaris support in
2.95.3 is very solid, and it's much faster compiling than 3.3.
> The disk footprint problem is easily solved, BTW, that being the topic
> of this thread.
sorry if there was any confusion, I was only talking about not removing
at some stage (probably when NetBSD-current switches to it), we can
rename lang/gcc3 to gcc.