Subject: Re: /usr/bin/cc versus stock gcc
To: Curt Sampson <>
From: Brian C. Grayson <>
List: tech-toolchain
Date: 02/04/1997 20:34:23
Curt Sampson wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Feb 1997, Brian C. Grayson wrote:
> >   Is anyone else concerned with "stock" compilability(?), as far as
> > possible?  Is core?  :)  Are these things PR-worthy?
> I am. I, and I think a few others, are proponents of moving toward
> the point where we use stock gcc and binutils for everything, to
> make cross-compling much easier. (I can't see this being a major
> problem with gcc, but binutils is another thing entirely, at least
> on the a.out ports.) So I would think this would be a good idea.

  This must be a stupid question :), but why has NetBSD's version of
a.out binutils _not_ been merged back in with the GNU folks? 
I thought the GNU configure stuff, with its
(CPU)-(Manufacturer)-(OS) format should take care of, say,
i386-*-netbsdaout with no hiccups, for example, provided they
were given the appropriate code/diffs.

  Is our code still not "finished"?  Do the GNU folks not
want our changes?  Would it just be too painful?  Or does it
boil down to the copyright issue -- that the GPL is too
restrictive for some of the necessary BSD'd code to be given to
them?  Or something else I haven't thought of?

  Brian  (doing my best to stir up some more discussion...)
Brian Grayson (
Graduate Student, Electrical and Computer Engineering
The University of Texas at Austin
Office:  ENS 406       (512) 471-8011
Finger for PGP key.