On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 07:18:38 -0700 (PDT) Darrell Anderson humanreadable@yahoo.com wrote:
Generally the gcc changes are to provide for the future, unfortunately not giving that much weight to the past. No we are not the only large project affected, but we are hit especially hard due to the small manpower-to-codebase_size of this project. Where other large projects, k4, gnome, etc.. may have hundreds of developers to help with changes, we have a relative few.
This the overwhelming attitude throughout free/libre software developers: screw backwards compatibility. Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead with bleeding edge!
I understand the reasoning: much less overhead and tighter code. Yet idealism seldom satisfies reality. Backwards compatibility is necessary.
But here g++ developers *do* provide backwards compatibility, it is called -fpermissive. And there is no "bleeding edge" at all unless you consider C++98 to be a bleeding edge standard. Anyway, old compilers still work. On my Slackware 13.1 system, I have g++-3.4 installed into /opt, and I can use it to compile a working program against system Qt4 thanks to system g++ being backwards compatible with g++-3.4 in terms of ABI.
Darrell
To unsubscribe, e-mail: trinity-devel-unsubscribe@lists.pearsoncomputing.net For additional commands, e-mail: trinity-devel-help@lists.pearsoncomputing.net Read list messages on the web archive: http://trinity-devel.pearsoncomputing.net/ Please remember not to top-post: http://trinity.pearsoncomputing.net/mailing_lists/#top-posting