On Wed, 2005-04-27 at 15:13 -0700, Stan Shebs wrote: > Steven Bosscher wrote: > > >On Wednesday 27 April 2005 17:45, Matt Thomas wrote: > > > >>>The features under discussion are new, they didn't exist before. > >>> > >>And because they never existed before, their cost for older platforms > >>may not have been correctly assessed. > >> > > > >If someone had cared about them, it would have been noticed earlier. > >But since _nobody_ has complained before you, I guess we can conclude > >that by far the majority if GCC users are quite happy with the cost > >assesments that were made. > > > No, there have been plenty of complaints, but the GCC mailing > lists have, shall we say, a "reputation", and a great many > users will not post to them,
I've never in my life heard this from another mailing list, and i contribute to a *great* many open source projects. > either for fear of being ridiculed, > or in the expection that they will not be heard. (Everything is > archived, and they can see what happens to others.) The only person i see ridiculing people frequently happens to be from @apple.com. > If you want > to see what users are *really* saying, look at the mailing lists > of other projects, and see what is said when GCC comes up for > discussion. I do, and most appreciate the work we do. > > Rightly or wrongly, the reward structure for GCC values new > features on the latest hardware over speedy bootstrapping on > old, so I don't expect things to change anytime soon. <rolleyes>
