Re: support of older compilers

[Adam Heath]

On Thu, 4 Nov 2004, Linus Torvalds wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, 4 Nov 2004, Adam Heath wrote:
> > >
> > > First off, for some people that is literally where _most_ of the CPU
> > > cycles go.
> >
> > So find a fast machine.  As I have already said, you don't need to compile a
> > kernel for a slow machine/arch *on* a slow machine/arch.
>
> I _have_ a fast machine. Others don't. And quite frankly, even I tend to
> prioritize things like "nice and quiet" over absolute speed.
>
> > I don't doubt these are issues.  That's not what I am discussing.
>
> Sure it is. You're complaining that developers use old versions of gcc.
> They do so for a reason. Old versions of gcc are sometimes better. They
> are better in many ways.

Using an old version of gcc because it is faster at compiling is a
non-argument.  If people don't bother using newer compilers, complaining
about their inefficiencies, then the issues will never be resolved.

I have no problem with older gccs if they produce more correct code.

> Your "use new versions of gcc even if it is slower" argument doesn't make
> any _sense_. If the new versions aren't any better, why would you want to
> use them?

That's not my argument.  Never has been.  I am against people who say not to
use newer gccs only on the grounds that they are slower.

If they produce bad code, then that's a valid reason.
If they produce larger code, that is a valid reason.

But slowness doesn't mean wrong, just by being slow.

ps: it seldom makes sense to use a single metric as a measure of the quality
    of some specific item in some specific situation.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/