Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 09:21:20 -0400
From: Rich Felker <>
Subject: Re: [RFC] pcc support for configure

On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 12:17:43PM +0200, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> * Isaac Dunham <> [2012-10-15 21:12:31 -0700]:
> > +# Older PCC versions don't define __PIC__ with -fPIC
> > +#
> > +tryflag CFLAG_TEST "-x c"
> > +printf '#ifndef __PIC__\n__PIC__=0\n#endif\n' | \
> > +$CC -E $CFLAG_TEST -fPIC - | grep __PIC__ && \
> > +
> i don't think it's worth adding such checks
> pcc is still in development and the last
> release was very much broken
> when it gets more stable and widely used then
> such ckecks will make sense, right now we can
> just depend on the latest pcc
> even with clang we can easily say that we
> only support clang+llvm >= 3.1
> (i assume the -ffreestanding bug is fixed in that)

Agreed. I don't think there's a point in supporting old compiler
versions except when there are possibly-compelling reasons to use
them. For old GCC's, the reasons are either bloat, speed, or license
issues... or just the fact that upgrading gcc is a nightmare if you
don't have new packages for it. None of these apply to pcc.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.