This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR target/6476


On Apr 29, 2002, Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> wrote:

>> On Mon, Apr 29, 2002 at 07:37:30AM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:

>>> Does it make more sense just to require some version of binutils with
>>> a version number greater than x?

[...]

> That's bad, indeed.  How helpful to have version numbers that cannot
> be compared with ">".  We could, I suppose, special-case H.J.s stuff,
> and extract the right version number from that.

The autoconf philosophy is that you don't test for version numbers,
you test for features.

What if this optimization is found to be broken, and disabled in a
future version of binutils?  Should GCC continue to attempt to use it?

Having additional code fragments in configure.in is no big deal.
They're no maintenance burden: we don't even look at them very often.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva   Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer                  aoliva@{cygnus.com, redhat.com}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp        oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist                Professional serial bug killer


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]