Re: GNUPro Development, v850

In message <4937f006$0$18074$8404b019@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, David Brown <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
Chris H wrote:
In message <m31vwo43ma.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Rich Walker <rw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
Chris H <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

BTW can you still get the original GCC (before they changed cores)?

Local GCC mirror:

GCC source repository, so you can tell why a change was made and when:
However most GCC don't use that as you say below

Availability of GCC packages from my distributor (Debian) for various architectures:
Most people use a gcc from one of the distributors who do their own patches and modifications and in the case of a lot of them include proprietary IP in the package. Not all the stuff the distis do is fed

You have a Debian-GCC not a "gcc" compiler.

Search all bugs reported to Debian for GCC-related packages:
But NOT for "GCC" only Debian's GCC and there a re a lot of other similar but different GCC distributions. Red had pointed out the performance in theirs varies from version to version and is NOT the same as any FSF version.
Saying "GCC" is like saying A compiler family where no two are likely to be the same. In a discussion yesterday with a FOSS devotee said ONLY the FSF GCC are legitimate to call GCC the rest are deviations. Nice to know there is consistency.
Behaviour and efficiency varies wildly, even for the same target and version number. One company had 4 programmers using GCC... turned out they are using three different compilers even though they were for the same targets and had the same version number.

You overstate your case so much that it's difficult to take you seriously when discussing gcc -

And you don't? Much of what you wrote would be true in an idea world. It is not an ideal world.

\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/