On Sun, 22 Jun 2003, grant beattie wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 12:07:15PM -0500, Frederick Bruckman wrote:
>
> > By the way, any idea why we're keeping gcc-2 and pgcc around? Doesn't
> > gcc-3 do it all, and do it better?
>
> it is far more bloated in terms of size on disk and memory footprint
> than gcc2, and therefore inappropriate for some systems.

Regarding memory requirements: what are you talking about -- are there
still development systems with only 8mb of RAM? NetBSD 2.0 is going to
be shipping gcc 3.3. Are you seriously suggesting that NetBSD 2.0
users are going to want to install and use an older gcc compiler? The
disk footprint problem is easily solved, BTW, that being the topic of
this thread.

"pgcc" is another story. It was buggy, at best, and development
appears to have stopped -- and rightly so, now that gcc-3 makes it
completely irrelevant.

Frederick