On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 9:58 PM, Andrew Pinski <pins...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 9:50 PM, David Starner <prosfil...@gmail.com> wrote: >> We've all seen cases where a quick patch is rejected in favor of a >> hypothetical patch, and years down the road, the program still has the >> problem. The people who blocked the quick patch, naturally, never >> bothered trying to write the patch they wanted. > > The problem here is a quick patch makes the situation worse rather > than better. That is the reason why the quick patch is rejected.
If it were replaced with a better one, that wouldn't be a problem. > The defaults are there for the > majority of users That remains to be seen. As I said, a substantial majority of Debian users on AMD64 who can compile C programs can't compile for 32 bits. > and majority of users of compiling a compiler knows > the risks of not having the current libraries installed. The "current" libraries? Currency has nothing to do with it. The libc development files for a 32-bit system, which are normally not needed for compiling on a pure 64-bit system. In any case, a couple normal developers on this list have said that has bit them. > That is because it is a hard to do and will force extra time in > compiling and might cause incorrect handling of cross builds. > Remember the host compiler does not have to compile for the multi-lib; > only the newly compiled compiler will be able to. Which goes straight to my first point. There is a build-time bug in GCC that will bite many Linux AMD64 users who might be interesting in trying to build a new version of GCC. It apparently will be there for many years. Certainly this reduces any inclination I might have had of actually trying to figure out GCC's build system and find a patch, as Andrew Haley suggests. -- Kie ekzistas vivo, ekzistas espero.
