On Jul 23, 2006, at 11:48 AM, Mark Mitchell wrote:
Are you suggesting that we ship software that performs poorly on
one of
the most popular systems actually in the field because, in the
abstract,
those systems could be better?
Maybe we just have to force the issue on people. As I mentioned to Ian,
you are suggesting we change the behavior which people already depend on
which is not something which anyone wants to do. In fact the current
behavior is well defined and has a purpose in that you don't need to
extra
stuff to get a common set of other tools/sysroot for different compilers
that would install at the same location. If we change it, we should
be able
to remove other options and features without going through a deprecation
period either. We should not have a double standard here, just
because it
is a performance issue and other people are confused about the current
behavior.
I would expect that most large software applications (for *all*
operating systems) contain comments like:
/* On some versions of the OS, we have to do X to workaround Y. */
Yes but most of those because people don't think about filing bug
reports.
We need to file the bug reports with the OS. Also Daniel's point about
a slow drive, there is again a reason why caches exist to speed up the
accesses (which includes stats).
If people don't file bugs, the work around stays forever and gets
stuck there.
In fact I think we have some work arounds in GCC which can be safely
removed,
like the comment size work around for Sun's c compiler. There are
others
like all the bool issues which we now work around via using char
instead of
_Bool.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
