This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Followup to configure.in patch for make_compare_target
- From: Phil Edwards <phil at jaj dot com>
- To: Nathanael Nerode <neroden at twcny dot rr dot com>
- Cc: Kelley Cook <kcook34 at ford dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 19:18:29 -0400
- Subject: Re: Followup to configure.in patch for make_compare_target
- References: <3F33D83F.1010909@ford.com> <3F3FE357.3010807@twcny.rr.com>
On Sun, Aug 17, 2003 at 04:19:35PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>
> Looking at it again, this has a rather GCC-Makefile-specific result
> ("gnucompare" vs. "slowcompare"). So maybe it shouldn't be abstracted
> after all. ;-) Does anyone else have a strong opinion? If not, go
> ahead and commit the patch.
I called it gnucompare because that's the only version of cmp we test for.
Once the test is /really/ abstracted, I figured, we would rename it to
"fastcompare" or something more general. I don't have a strong opinion
about it.
--
Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it.
- Brian W. Kernighan