Mail Archives: djgpp/2000/06/11/22:44:16
zargon AT hotmail DOT vom (Zargon) writes:
> On Sat, 10 Jun 2000 08:58:59 +0200, "Eli Zaretskii"
> <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> ate too many hallucinogenic mushrooms and wrote:
>
> >> No, egcs doesn't seem to use the same numbering as gcc.
> >
> >What EGCS? There is no EGCS anymore, it was renamed back to GCC, when
> >the EGCS team got the responsibility of maintaining the mainstream GCC
> >distribution.
>
> What? This is news to me...
From egcs.cygnus.com, which is also gcc.gnu.org:
# In April 1999, the egcs steering committee was appointed by the FSF
# as the official GNU maintainer for GCC.
Since about that time, there has been no more egcs.
>
> >If you mean PGCC, then I suggest to drop it: it's buggy, and is known
> >not to work in some important cases. AFAIK, it's also not maintained
> >anymore (what is the time stamp on the compiler binaries, btw?).
>
> PGCC evolved into egcs, which fixed all that, this about a year ago.
> What the devil is going on around here though? It seems like if I turn
> my back for a month or two, everyone changes the landscape and
> rewrites the rules without bothering to notify me...
As I understood it, egcs was a fork of gcc prompted by the perceived
slow speed and poor responsiveness of the gcc maintainters. pgcc was
a fork of egcs with more agressive pentium optimizations (and more
bugs). pgcc still exists.
/------pgcc--------------->
/
/---egcs--+------(renamed)--gcc------->
/
gcc-----+-------gcc-----------(dead)
Sorry nobody told you, but most references to egcs now mention that it
has become gcc.
--
Nate Eldredge
neldredge AT hmc DOT edu
- Raw text -