11 Apr
2012
11 Apr
'12
2:48 p.m.
On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 07:18:38 -0700 (PDT)
Darrell Anderson <humanreadable(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
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.
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.
Darrell
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
trinity-devel-unsubscribe(a)lists.pearsoncomputing.net For additional
commands, e-mail: trinity-devel-help(a)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