Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261228AbUKEWTl (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Nov 2004 17:19:41 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261213AbUKEWTl (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Nov 2004 17:19:41 -0500 Received: from brown.brainfood.com ([146.82.138.61]:24705 "EHLO gradall.private.brainfood.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261228AbUKEWTb (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Nov 2004 17:19:31 -0500 Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2004 16:19:05 -0600 (CST) From: Adam Heath X-X-Sender: adam@gradall.private.brainfood.com To: Willy Tarreau cc: Linus Torvalds , Chris Wedgwood , Christoph Hellwig , Timothy Miller , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: support of older compilers In-Reply-To: <20041105202038.GC30993@alpha.home.local> Message-ID: References: <41894779.10706@techsource.com> <20041103211353.GA24084@infradead.org> <20041103233029.GA16982@taniwha.stupidest.org> <20041105202038.GC30993@alpha.home.local> 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: 2005 Lines: 44 On Fri, 5 Nov 2004, Willy Tarreau wrote: > On Thu, Nov 04, 2004 at 05:39:08PM -0600, Adam Heath wrote: > > > Using an old version of gcc because it is faster at compiling is a > > non-argument. > > If you can send to all of us for free some hardware which is twice as fast > as what we have, which does not generate more heat and noise, then perhaps > most of us will accept to use a twice as slow compiler. But not for long, > since some may realize that they can produce quality code twice as fast on > their new system ;-) > > At least, with fast machines and fast compilers, people have no excuse not > testing the patches they send. A few years ago, broken & non-tested patches > were very common. This could become standard again if everyone jumped into > gcc 3.4 unconditionnaly. My argument started when people starting complaining about new compilers being slow, and using that as the only reason to not use them. A single datapoint by itself can not be used in an argument here. You are adding additional requirements(using older hardware), as that makes the argument valid. > > If they produce bad code, then that's a valid reason. > > If they produce larger code, that is a valid reason. > > You can also ask the gcc people when they will decide to write a new version > which is able to compile some code which compiles with the previous release. > I have some tools which don't compile anymore with gcc 3 and error messages > look more like insults than information, and I don't even know how to "fix" > (adapt ?) them. This too is a valid reason to stick to older compilers. Not always. Older gccs accepted bad code; you can't honestly expect newer ones to always accept this bad code. Note: I'm not saying that's the specific case here. - 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/