Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 4 Nov 2004 17:39:08 -0600 (CST) | From | Adam Heath <> | Subject | Re: support of older compilers |
| |
On Thu, 4 Nov 2004, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > On Thu, 4 Nov 2004, Adam Heath wrote: > > > > > > First off, for some people that is literally where _most_ of the CPU > > > cycles go. > > > > So find a fast machine. As I have already said, you don't need to compile a > > kernel for a slow machine/arch *on* a slow machine/arch. > > I _have_ a fast machine. Others don't. And quite frankly, even I tend to > prioritize things like "nice and quiet" over absolute speed. > > > I don't doubt these are issues. That's not what I am discussing. > > Sure it is. You're complaining that developers use old versions of gcc. > They do so for a reason. Old versions of gcc are sometimes better. They > are better in many ways.
Using an old version of gcc because it is faster at compiling is a non-argument. If people don't bother using newer compilers, complaining about their inefficiencies, then the issues will never be resolved.
I have no problem with older gccs if they produce more correct code.
> Your "use new versions of gcc even if it is slower" argument doesn't make > any _sense_. If the new versions aren't any better, why would you want to > use them?
That's not my argument. Never has been. I am against people who say not to use newer gccs only on the grounds that they are slower.
If they produce bad code, then that's a valid reason. If they produce larger code, that is a valid reason.
But slowness doesn't mean wrong, just by being slow.
ps: it seldom makes sense to use a single metric as a measure of the quality of some specific item in some specific situation. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |