Re: gcc 3.5 integration branch proposal

[Marc Espie <espie at nerim dot net>]

On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 01:08:07PM -0500, Scott Robert Ladd wrote:
> This is what I meant by lauding GCC's "support for older hardware." I
> did quite a bit of cross-compiling for an embedded telephon application;
> I sure as heck don't expect my cell phone to run GCC!

One key point that I'd like to make, again, is that cross-compiling
kills old architectures, in terms of code quality.

I believe that the single most extensive test one can do is to build
a complete distribution on a system.

For quite a few cpu, there exists generalist machines, that can, in theory,
compile gcc, and then use it to compile an OS.

If you cross-compile everything, you will only run a select few
applications on that OS.

Experience has shown again and again that actually compiling large pieces
of software on a machine is one of the best all-purpose testcase one can 
wish for, between exercising the OS, running lots of small processes, and
dieing very quickly as soon as some faulty code happens, be it in the
compiler, the linker, the kernel, or in whatever piece such a complex software
architecture is composed of.

Remember that note about signal 11 on PCs, being attributable to faulty
memory ?   Do you think that it is a coincidence such signals were most
often seen while running a compilation, to the extent that an item had
to be added to the GCC FAQ, mentioning that it was faulty memory, and
likely not GCC's fault.