Re: Deprecating basic asm in a function - What now?

[Jonathan Wakely <jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com>]

On 22 June 2016 at 10:28, David Wohlferd wrote:
> And I *get* that it takes time to re-write this, and people have schedules,
> lives, a need for sleep.  But even under the most insanely aggressive
> schedule I can imagine (if gcc continue to release ~1/year), it will be at
> least a year before there's a release that has the (disable-able) warning,
> and another year before we could even think about actually removing this.
> So someone who plans to use v8.0 in their production code on the day it is
> released still has a minimum of *two years* to get ready.

It doesn't matter how much warning people have to fix such things,
most of them won't do it. Then at the last minute some poor person has
to spend days or weeks going through other people's code fixing all
the problems. If the benefit isn't clear then it's just a pain and
causes wailing and gnashing of teeth.

(When we switched Fedora to using GCC 6, with C++14 enabled by
default, dozens and dozens of C++ packages failed to compile, because
even in 2016 nobody had ever tried to compile them with C++11 features
enabled.)