This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Convergence of GCC - slightly off topic
- From: Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at bitrange dot com>
- To: yabada badoo <yabadabadoo123 at hotmail dot com>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 22:29:59 -0400 (EDT)
- Subject: Re: Convergence of GCC - slightly off topic
Even more off-topic answer. Well, most of it. You have been
warned.
On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, yabada badoo wrote:
> I was hoping to get feedback from seasoned (battered
> battle faces :-) c and c++ folks that are more seasoned in dealing with
> sitiations that might expose some of the more thornier aspects of 3.2 with
> respect to the other (older) gcc versions shipped with various linux
> distros.
>
> I am not looking for comments on the ABI changes,
> but rather on situations where you know that the older versions give better
> support than 3.2 in terms of language, runtime support and libriaries etc.
Yes. They are all better. The GCC team uses a decreasing
quality development model: Any newer release is worse than any
older release. ;-)
Other than that, correct your asm:s, don't cast around, and
don't use naked new-lines in asms. And don't use ## to stop
macro argument evaluation; only use it to concatenate parts that
become *one* token.
> As I have the luxury of starting with a clean slate
> I wanted to tip my toe into this gcc water and see if
> any muddy skeletons would be stirred up, or whether
> all corpses [have been/can be] given proper burial with
> 3.2
Consider a carreer in horror movie scripts. :-)
(Incidentally, does any of the Jason's here live in Crystal Lake?)
> p.s.
> #1
> I am using hotmail account for practical/personal reasons, I hope you do not
> read anything into it
> or feel offended in any way.
It looks like a spammer account name but other than that I have
nothing against it. :-)
brgds, H-P