Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262493AbUKDXji (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Nov 2004 18:39:38 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262497AbUKDXje (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Nov 2004 18:39:34 -0500 Received: from brown.brainfood.com ([146.82.138.61]:28296 "EHLO gradall.private.brainfood.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262493AbUKDXjc (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Nov 2004 18:39:32 -0500 Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 17:39:08 -0600 (CST) From: Adam Heath X-X-Sender: adam@gradall.private.brainfood.com To: Linus Torvalds cc: Chris Wedgwood , Christoph Hellwig , Timothy Miller , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: support of older compilers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <41894779.10706@techsource.com> <20041103211353.GA24084@infradead.org> <20041103233029.GA16982@taniwha.stupidest.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1837 Lines: 46 On Thu, 4 Nov 2004, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > On Thu, 4 Nov 2004, Adam Heath wrote: > > > > > > First off, for some people that is literally where _most_ of the CPU > > > cycles go. > > > > So find a fast machine. As I have already said, you don't need to compile a > > kernel for a slow machine/arch *on* a slow machine/arch. > > I _have_ a fast machine. Others don't. And quite frankly, even I tend to > prioritize things like "nice and quiet" over absolute speed. > > > I don't doubt these are issues. That's not what I am discussing. > > Sure it is. You're complaining that developers use old versions of gcc. > They do so for a reason. Old versions of gcc are sometimes better. They > are better in many ways. Using an old version of gcc because it is faster at compiling is a non-argument. If people don't bother using newer compilers, complaining about their inefficiencies, then the issues will never be resolved. I have no problem with older gccs if they produce more correct code. > Your "use new versions of gcc even if it is slower" argument doesn't make > any _sense_. If the new versions aren't any better, why would you want to > use them? That's not my argument. Never has been. I am against people who say not to use newer gccs only on the grounds that they are slower. If they produce bad code, then that's a valid reason. If they produce larger code, that is a valid reason. But slowness doesn't mean wrong, just by being slow. ps: it seldom makes sense to use a single metric as a measure of the quality of some specific item in some specific situation. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/