Why 2.95.4 ? (and libscl)

Nick Burrett nick at dsvr.net
Thu Feb 7 02:59:52 PST 2002


Ian Jeffray <ian at paradise-uk.net> writes:

> I guess Nick's the one to answer this - We just moved from 2.95.2 to
> 2.95.4 so you must have thought there was good reason to do that?

The move from 2.95.2 to 2.95.4 was easy and just involved copying a
few files from the masters.

I branched 2.95 on GCCSDK so I could continue work on a GCC 3.1 port.
I haven't committed any work from this yet because I started to
concentrate on getting the 2.95 stuff working properly.
 
> I'm just wondering why there's no 2.96.x activities?   I suspect the
> answer may be "lots of work, little benefit", but I'd be interested
> to hear, just for amusement.

It actually consists of a complete re-port of GCC to RISC OS which will
be quite a lot of work.  I do want to do this, but I'm trying to think
of better ways of doing the port so as to minimise the changes required
for RISC OS.

This would probably mean that we change the local variable references
to be relative to `fp' rather than `sp'.  Though my suspicion is that
if we do this, then we lose support for non-contiguous stack chunks.

Nick.



More information about the gcc mailing list