On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 12:01:35 +0200, Erik Trulsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you actually believe that I have a very nice bridge here you might > be interested in. It is certainly the goal that things which worked on > 4.x will continue to work in 5.x, and it might even work out that way > in 99.99% of all cases, but *everything*? Not a bloody chance - there > are always bugs that have yet to fixed (or even discovered). The primary phrase which a developer must believe is "No software is 100% foolproof". So speaking in that line, indeed no software including the Releases of FreeBSD are 100% bug free. What I meant was, the RELEASE, not STABLE is expected to work correctly and fight back all the bugs that had been discovered till date. But I never meant it is perfect. If it was, then we would never have patches or future releases. And BTW I would be really interested to know about some hardware/software which used to work under 4.X and stopped working under 5.Y even after updating to the latest versions and applying all patches/hacks. It is entirely probable and acceptable that out of the box, a software natively made for 4.X will not work on 5.Y > Depends. It it is a 486sx it will not run 5.x (support for FPU-less > systems has been removed.) I believe 5.x also needs a bit more memory > than 4.x, so if that box has too little RAM it might be unbearably slow > under 5.x Yeh, I forgot to mention about the FPU. Thanks for adding up. > And that is bullshit. It is of course possible to compile a 4.x binary > on a 5.x box - just make sure you link against the right libraries (and > in the case of C++ programs at least, compile with a compatible > compiler.) I don't know if it is possible to do this without jumping > through an inordinate number of hoops however. First of all, I guess u got a bit too aggresive which I believe is unnecessary. Secondly, Try disassembling a 4.X binary and a 5.X binary, you will understand what I mean. I have done it myself and I am sure about it. Things start differing even more when you start enabling things like unrolling loops and making things architecture dependant with mcpu, march and similar flags. And btw I guess you missed a word in my previous mail. I added the word "native". Do clarify if that was not clear to you what I meant by Native. Regards S. -- Subhro Sankha Kar School of Information Technology Block AQ-13/1 Sector V ZIP 700091 India _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
