[PATCH] Fix PR target/6476
Mark Mitchell
mark@codesourcery.com
Mon Apr 29 10:37:00 GMT 2002
--On Monday, April 29, 2002 02:27:06 PM -0300 Alexandre Oliva
<aoliva@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Apr 29, 2002, Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> wrote:
>
>>> On Mon, Apr 29, 2002 at 07:37:30AM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
>
>>>> Does it make more sense just to require some version of binutils with
>>>> a version number greater than x?
>
> [...]
>
>> That's bad, indeed. How helpful to have version numbers that cannot
>> be compared with ">". We could, I suppose, special-case H.J.s stuff,
>> and extract the right version number from that.
>
> The autoconf philosophy is that you don't test for version numbers,
> you test for features.
I know this -- but I'm not sure I buy it in this case.
Let's not debate this point; it's too contentious, and likely to
distract us from what we're really trying to do. We've already got
a solution to this binutils problem; on we go.
Would you look at the flag_no_inline issues that have been raised?
Apparently, these are related to your merge of the tree inliner into C.
Thanks,
--
Mark Mitchell mark@codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com
More information about the Gcc-patches
mailing list