[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