X-pop3-spooler: POP3MAIL 2.1.0 b 3 961213 -bs-
Delivered-To: pcg AT goof DOT com
Message-Id: <199804161041.MAA04724@portofix.ida.liu.se>
To: Hannu Koivisto <azure AT iki DOT fi>
Cc: beastium-list AT Desk DOT nl
Subject: Re: PCG pgcc in egcs? 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "15 Apr 1998 15:15:50 +0300."
             <87sonfi8ll DOT fsf AT quasar DOT vvf DOT fi> 
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 12:41:40 +0200
From: Patrik Hagglund <patha AT ida DOT liu DOT se>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: Marc Lehmann <pcg AT goof DOT com>
Status: RO
Content-Length: 2257
Lines: 54

Thanks for the answer. I found the message included below on the
egcs-list, and it answer my questions not addressed in the pgcc FAQ.

Regards,
Patrik Hägglund

Marc Lehmann (pcg AT goof DOT com)
Sun, 25 Jan 1998 01:12:51 +0100 

In reply to: Hannu Koivisto: "About merging egcs and pgcc..." 

On Fri, Jan 23, 1998 at 05:30:38PM +0200, Hannu Koivisto wrote:
> Greetings,
> 
> Just a thought that me and a friend of mine started wondering: is there
> some particular reason why merging pgcc improvements into egcs hasn't been
> considered?

It is being considered and it is being done.

Many optimizations in pgcc are (in their current implementation) not suited
for inclusion into egcs. Fortunately, most (if not all) of them will be
re-implemented as time allows, and will certainly be better than pgcc (hey,
I hope so ;)

> egcs? Or perhaps pgcc team wants to work with a separate version and not
> together with other egcs developers?

I'm still maintaining a seperate pgcc version, but the intention is only to
fix bugs and update it to new version. As you already said, there is still
reason for pgcc to exist (speed).

Future developements will go into egcs (maybe after a short test-phase in
pgcc). The benefit is that both compilers will profit from new technology
(as was one of the intentions behind the egcs project)

> I'm now keeping both egcs and pgcc installed on a same machine, which
> isn't that hard but not very convenient either especially when
> compiled-with-either-one libstdc++ is shared between them (also shared
> files in general complicate keeping these both

Sharing these libraries shouldn't be aproblem, because since early egcs
snapshots, pgcc, and egcs are closely in sync (pgcc snapshot dates exactly
match ecgs dates they base on etc..)

If there are any questions left, don't hesitate to ask me!

      -----==-                                              |
      ----==-- _                                            |
      ---==---(_)__  __ ____  __       Marc Lehmann       +--
      --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ /       pcg AT goof DOT com       |e|
      -=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\                          --+
    The choice of a GNU generation                        |
                                                          |