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.
I find it interesting, and even funny that even the extreme
copyleft are predicting clang will take over gcc:
http://youtu.be/-ItFjEG3LaA
Cheers,
Pedro.
-adrian
_______________________________________________
svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
