This is the mail archive of the gcc@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: GCC 4.1: Buildable on GHz machines only?


On Wed, 2005-04-27 at 15:13 -0700, Stan Shebs wrote:
> Steven Bosscher wrote:
> 
> >On Wednesday 27 April 2005 17:45, Matt Thomas wrote:
> >
> >>>The features under discussion are new, they didn't exist before.
> >>>
> >>And because they never existed before, their cost for older platforms
> >>may not have been correctly assessed.
> >>
> >
> >If someone had cared about them, it would have been noticed earlier.
> >But since _nobody_ has complained before you, I guess we can conclude
> >that by far the majority if GCC users are quite happy with the cost
> >assesments that were made.
> >
> No, there have been plenty of complaints, but the GCC mailing
> lists have, shall we say, a "reputation", and a great many
> users will not post to them, 

I've never in my life heard this from another mailing list, and i
contribute to a *great* many open source projects.

> either for fear of being ridiculed,
> or in the expection that they will not be heard. (Everything is
> archived, and they can see what happens to others.)

The only person i see ridiculing people frequently happens to be from
@apple.com.

>  If you want
> to see what users are *really* saying, look at the mailing lists
> of other projects, and see what is said when GCC comes up for
> discussion.

I do, and most appreciate the work we do.

> 
> Rightly or wrongly, the reward structure for GCC values new
> features on the latest hardware over speedy bootstrapping on
> old, so I don't expect things to change anytime soon.

<rolleyes>


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