On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 10:36:16PM -0500, Pedro Giffuni wrote: > > On 01/20/15 22:06, Adrian Chadd wrote: > >On 20 January 2015 at 18:19, Alexey Dokuchaev <da...@freebsd.org> wrote: > >>On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 07:50:23PM -0500, Pedro Giffuni wrote: > >>>But the fix is rather ugly, isn't it? I would personally prefer to just > >>>kill the older gcc but in the meantime updating it so that it behaves > >>>like the updated gcc/clang would be better. IMHO. > >>Seconded. Putting extra harness on the code to avoid bugs in the compiler > >>that were actually fixed upsteam is totally bogus. > >Right, but: > > > >* not all of us work on compilers; > >* not all of us want to currently be working on compilers; > >* some of us have to use the gcc that's in tree; > >* .. and apparently updating that gcc to something > 4.2 is verboten. > > The external toolchain can't be that bad(?). > > >So if someone wants to help Navdeep by backporting those options, > > Hmm .. didn't I post a patch? > > >please do. I bet he'd love the help. > > > Ugh he doesn't and TBH, I don't care enough to look for > consensus either.
Let's please just move on from this discussion then. I am not familiar with gcc internals so I can't vouch for this patch, and gcc is the default compiler on platforms that I cannot test. Given that, it would be reckless of me to push a gcc patch just to get it to play nice with one single file in the tree. High risk, little reward (given that -fms-extensions can be applied to just the file in question without disturbing anything else in the tree). Regards, Navdeep _______________________________________________ svn-src-all@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-all-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
