DragonFly kernel List (threaded) for 2004-07
Re: NO_OBJC patch
Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
I left this out because I wanted to get buildworld working first.
The interesting question are:
a) Are this options (NO_OBJC and NO_FORTRAN) in use?
b) If you use them, do you prefer a compiler without the support or only
without the libs / frontends?
The code is intentionally structured to allow the full removal of all
parts, I'm just not sure wether we want this. Don't waste the time with
a NO_CXX or NO_CPP option, the former doesn't work because we do use C++
in our tree (groff!) and the later just isn't worth the effort for
I guess if you axed those options I wouldn't be too sad. I only use
them because I have a system which is fairly low on resources and it
speeds up my build time if I don't include them. Plus I don't use them.
What do you mean by a compiler without the support? I don't understand
how the compiler is structured exactly, I just assumed that if you
didn't include the libs and frontends that's all there was to it.
(o,o) Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others.
()_() --Groucho Marx