This is the mail archive of the gdb@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the GDB project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: Apple and gcc 2?

From: Stan Shebs <shebs at apple dot com>
To: Jim Ingham <jingham at apple dot com>
Cc: Michael Elizabeth Chastain <mec at shout dot net>, gdb at sources dot redhat dot com
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 13:36:47 -0700
Subject: Re: Apple and gcc 2?
References: <200309192054.h8JKsfvL020287@duracef.shout.net> <712014EF-EAE4-11D7-A429-00039379E320@apple.com>

Jim Ingham wrote:

Michael,

On Sep 19, 2003, at 1:54 PM, Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote:
(Obviously where I'm going with this is: figuring out when gdb
can drop support for gcc 2).
I can't really speak to this. I don't really know if/when we are going to drop support for compiling kext's with 2.95.


Apple's hacked GCC 2.95 is needed to build device drivers that will run on
Mac OS X 10.1 and 10.0 systems.  While probably there are few 10.0
systems out there, there may be several million 10.1 systems, and hardware
makers that want to sell to those users will want a GCC 2 compiler. I can't
predict when the demand will go away, but presumably at some point the
devices' boxes will all say "10.2 or higher only" because the extra
sales to 10.1 users won't pay for the necessary testing.

Stan

References:
- Re: Apple and gcc 2?
  - From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain
- Re: Apple and gcc 2?
  - From: Jim Ingham

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]