On Wednesday 27 April 2005 22:06, Paul Koning wrote: > >>>>> "Steven" == Steven Bosscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Steven> On Wednesday 27 April 2005 17:45, Matt Thomas wrote: > >> If no one builds natively on older platforms, the recognition that > >> the new features maybe a problem for older platforms will never be > >> made. > > Steven> Maybe the older platform should stick to the older compiler > Steven> then, if it is too slow to support the kind of compiler that > Steven> modern systems need. > > Maybe I'm missing something, but... > > Isn't a full bootstrap (all languages) part of the required test > procedure for changes? That's what the website says right now.
Isn't there a special text about port changes? Some ports don't even support all languages. > Since > Matt is the Vax port maintainer, he therefore has good reasons for > needing to run bootstraps on slow machines. Yes, he has. Is that a valid reason to call GCC4 a pig? No. > Your comment seems to translate to: "when GCC grows to the point that > you can't reasonably run a full bootstrap on platform X anymore, then > platform X is obsolete". That seems like a strange new obsoletion > criterion. Interesting way of arguing. First you twist my words and put something in my mouth that I did not say, then you comment on that... What I'm saying is that if you really want/need for some reason to do full bootstraps of the latest and greatest GCC on something as old and slow as m68k (the old kind), VAX, or PDP-11, you should not complain that other people have moved on to recent targets where a bootstrap is not such a big deal and the new features in GCC make the difference between a good or poor compiler for that target. I don't think there's any disagreement that GCC is not as fast as it should be. But bootstrapping <insert SLOC count here>[*] lines of code on a real VAX is just never going to be very fast. There is no reason to blame GCC for that. Gr. Steven [*] Does anyone have an idea of how large GCC really is?
