Mikhail Teterin wrote: > середа 13 грудень 2006 16:53, Scott Long написав: >> And I say that FreeBSD shouldn't be a beta-tester for new, experimental >> compiler features. > > We don't have to start using OpenMP in the base and no port will be _forced_ > to use it either. But having a compiler _capable of it_ will be very good. I would second that. Having a compiler with features aiming modern omputer design wouldn't be a disadvantage and many people, like me, prefere using the systems compiler instead of one out of the ports. > > Unless you deem the entire gcc-4.2 to be "new and experimental" (I think, 4.3 > is such), your above-quoted argument is not valid. I'm not very familiar with the compiler development, but it seemed to me gcc 4.1 was like a interim solution. This arose due to the fast appeareance of it's successor ... > >> I also say that words and opinions are cheaper than actions. > > Thank you very much, Scott, for this timely and uniquely insightful reminder. > This important point is almost never raised on the FreeBSD mailing lists, > which so often leads participants to think, that actions are cheaper than > words and opinions. > > We are moving from gcc-3.x to gcc-4.1. Compared to _that_ move, the > difference between 4.1 and 4.2 is not very large. If you think otherwise -- > please say so explicitly. Thank you. > > -mi > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-current_at_freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe_at_freebsd.org"Received on Thu Dec 14 2006 - 06:48:46 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:03 UTC