[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       busybox
Subject:    Re: minimal requirements for build C compiler?
From:       Bernhard Fischer <rep.nop () aon ! at>
Date:       2006-05-31 7:01:41
Message-ID: 20060531070141.GA28943 () aon ! at
[Download RAW message or body]

On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 06:48:30PM -0700, Andre wrote:
>Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> On Friday 26 May 2006 08:31, Andre wrote:
>> > "You should upgrade to a later version" is of course the standard
>> > argument for dropping support for older tools. It doesn't change
>> > the fact that 3.4.4 is an offical release and 'bleeding edge' not
>> > much more than a year ago - which for most projects would be
>> > reason enough to try to support it.
>> 
>> your rant here is really pretty weak
>> 
>> we're not telling you your compiler is outdated, we're telling you
>> you're using a broken compiler
>
>If 'broken' is defined as 'has known bugs' then I have no argument
>that gcc 3.4.x for ARM is broken (although I would disagree that this
>is the normal definition...).
>
>That isn't really the point though.
>
>The point is that writing code which relies on undocumented behaviour
>within an optimisation pass of the compiler is/was risky and this
>time you lost. Please just admit it, shrug it off and move on ;-)

To cite landley on this ".. every C compiler since DOS times does
DeadCodeElimination".
While i personally see no great benefit in moving the duty of the
preprocessor into the C compiler domain and to rely on eventual passes
being performed, the current maintainer did choose to go that route.
Perhaps complain to him that your compiler has "missed optimization"
bugs ;)
_______________________________________________
busybox mailing list
busybox@busybox.net
http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/busybox
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]