This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] Don't use slowcompare method unconditionally
- From: Andrew Pinski <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu>
- To: jakub at redhat dot com
- Cc: pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu (Andrew Pinski), paolo dot bonzini at lu dot unisi dot ch (Paolo Bonzini), gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, kcook at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 12:11:11 -0500 (EST)
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Don't use slowcompare method unconditionally
>
> On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 12:01:48PM -0500, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 11:44:04AM -0500, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> > > > Yes it can do harm, first it changes behavior which changing from an older
> > > > version of POSIX to a newer should not.
> > > >
> > > > This again is a bug in coreutils and really needs to be fixed there.
> > >
> > > coreutils just follows POSIX. So if you want to moan anywhere, you should
> > > moan at the Austin group. But as the obsolescent options were removed
> > > in IEEE 1003.1, 2004 (and already marked as obsolescent in SUSv2), good
> > > luck.
> >
> > Actually they already accepted that tail should be allowed to accept
> > +10c and -10c as extension.
>
> And can you explain why GCC cannot change to work even with tail that
> doesn't support that form? I really don't understand why you are fighting
> for this that much. coreutils with that behaviour are out in the wild for
> months and you are just suggesting that because you don't like that their
> behaviour GCC must not change and people who have them installed need
> to patch GCC themselves or find other workarounds.
Becuase there are much older machines which don't support "tail -n".
Read the links I linked to in the previous message and you will see this
is about portiblity reasons why we should not change.
Again how many times does this coreutils bug has to be discussed on the
GCC list to get them to fix it?
-- Pinski