On Mon, 28 May 2012 10:42:00 +0200 Davidlohr Bueso <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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. It is extra effort to do the workarounds for each older version, more so the older they are. > There's a difference between totally stupid (0.95) and practical. Indeed. And I want that clarified and marked up. So you're not willing to support 0.95; what is the lowest you _are_ willing to support? > 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. And none of those platforms were mentioned by name. I find that rather, hm, quirky, to say "it broke some holy platform whose name I may not mention". The attributes do have the same effect, at the cost of an order or two magnitudes of more writing and reading. Again, I ask you to please list all of those holy platforms and the versions of GCC they carry, to constructively determine an acceptable minimum version. - Lauri _______________________________________________ Monkey mailing list [email protected] http://lists.monkey-project.com/listinfo/monkey
