On 07/24/2013 11:51 PM, David Starner wrote: > On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Andrew Haley <a...@redhat.com> wrote: >> Not at all: we're just disagreeing about what a real system with >> a real workload looks like. > > No, we aren't. We're disagreeing about whether it's acceptable to > enable a feature by default that breaks the compiler build half way > through with an obscure error message.
No we aren't. I want that error message fixed too. A configure- time warning would be good. > Real systems need features that aren't enabled by default sometimes. I *totally* agree. >> It's a stupid thing to say anyway, because who is to say their >> system is more real than mine or yours? > > By that logic, you've already said that any system needing GNAT is > less real then others, because it's not enabled by default. Absolutely not: you're the one making claims about "real systems and real workloads". I made no such claims. Andrew.
