Subject: anyone know if this is true?

From: Larry McVoy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 09:41:47 -0700

If it isn't true, can someone send mail to Tiemann and tell him the
facts.  Sounds like we're getting bad press.

------- Forwarded Message

Date:    Tue, 18 Jun 1996 05:22:52 -0700
From:    Michael Tiemann <[email-masked]>
To:      [email-masked]
Subject: [comp.sys.sgi.apps] gcc part II

Is this not fixed in 6.2?  I upgraded my machine at home yesterday, and
it looked suspiciously like SGI was providing headers and libraries as
part of the std 6.2 release.

    From: [email-masked] (Jon Rust)
    Subject: gcc part II
    Newsgroups: comp.sys.sgi.apps
    Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 22:25:34 -0700
    Organization: IAVC
    Path: cygnus.com!kithrup.com!news.Stanford.EDU!agate!howland.reston.ans.net
!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news.vcnet.com!jon.vc.net!user
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: jon.vc.net
X-Newsreader: Yet Another NewsWatcher 2.2.0b4

    Before I fly off the handle, I wanna make sure this is true.

    You can't build ***anything*** unless you fork over a huge wad of cash to
    SGI for their compiler and dev enviro?

    **If** this is true, it's horseshit. No wonder SGI is so far down the food
    chain in the land of UNIX. Buying SGI could be one of the biggest mistakes
    I've made since openning my business over 15 months ago. I wonder if my 30
    days are up. Maybe I can ship it back. I only wish I'd bought [insert any
    other UNIX platform here].

    If it's not true, could someone plz point me in the right direction to get
    gcc working so I can compile BIND, RADIUS, wuftpd, etc...

    pissed off with no build capability,
    jon

    --------------------------------------------------------
    Jon Rust
    Internet Access of Ventura County
    [email-masked]        http://www.vc.net         805.383.3500

I know that gcc is not yet 6.2-friendly, but that's much more easily
fixed than the library/header problem.

Michael

------- End of Forwarded Message

---

From: [email-masked] (Ariel Faigon)
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 10:10:31 -0700 (PDT)

Sadly, it *is* true.  I guess many more 6.2 pissed off customers
are waiting down the pipeline.

We can solve it by getting David Miller's development environment
packaged as freeware, (it includes a GNU linker that works)
and put it (really quick) outside the firewall for whoever
is interested.

	1) Someone with a couple of days of time needs to take this
	   and just do it. I was planning on it, but I need
	   another week or so to start.

	2) I'm afraid we'll need to add crt[1n].o as binaries
	   as these are *not* shipped with the headers and libraries
	   of 6.2

Any comments, objections from anyone (especially for step 2) ?

-- 
Peace, Ariel

---

From: "Donna Yobs" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 10:14:37 -0700

You do get the basics with eoe:

versions long eoe.hdr.lib

shows what hdrs are on basic irix
versions long eoe.hdr.lib|wc
           283          1415         17711

both are default:
eoe.hdr.lib [d]
compiler_eoe.hdr.lib [d]

-- 

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Donna Derby Yobs        Silicon Graphics -  NSD         [email-masked]
			 Product Marketing

---

From: Michael Tiemann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 10:35:19 -0700

Hey Ariel, good to hear from you!

It sounds to me like (1) SGI intended to make GCC a viable freeware
option for Irix 6.2, (2) the support in 6.2 is not quite right, due to
slight technical problems.  If I understand this correctly, then I think
it won't be too hard to fix the PR-related issues, and I'll be happy to
chime in our support for the intended solution (whatever it may be).

If SGI isn't committing to supplying a reasonable foundation to GNU (w/o
ProDev or IDO), then that's another story.

Michael