On Mon, 2012-05-28 at 11:30 +0300, Lauri Kasanen wrote: > On Mon, 28 May 2012 10:26:13 +0200 > Davidlohr Bueso <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I'm *strongly* against this. We already impose a strong requirement with > > the kernel version and there is no good reason to limit gcc. Yes, it's > > true that most people will use updated versions but there are still > > important platforms that use older versions and that's no reason to > > exclude them - we only hurt ourselves. > > > > And hey... preprocessor checks are free! > > Surely you too see it's a road of diminishing gains? Would you like to add > code to support GCC 0.95?
Care to explain why diminishing gains? If a new gcc version adds some amazing feature that only means older users won't take advantage of it, it won't affect them any other way. There's a difference between totally stupid (0.95) and practical. You're mentioning pragmas and atomic builtins (that *already* broke current functionality for some platforms!!!) as examples. Pragmas are bogus and that's one of the reasons you see them avoided in many many projects (including the kernel - as much as possible). We got the exact same function with function attributes. - Davidlohr _______________________________________________ Monkey mailing list [email protected] http://lists.monkey-project.com/listinfo/monkey
