On Saturday, August 24, 2013 7:19:22 am David Chisnall wrote: > On 24 Aug 2013, at 11:30, "Sam Fourman Jr." <sfourman_at_gmail.com> wrote: > > > So I vote, let's not give ourselves the burden of "lugging" dead weight in > > base > > for another 5 years. (in 2017 do we still want to be worrying about gcc in > > base?) > > Perhaps more to the point, in 2017 do we want to be responsible for > maintaining a fork of a 2007 release of gcc and libstdc++? This is a red herring and I'd wish you'd stop bringing it up constantly. GCC has not needed constant care and feeding in the 7.x/8.x/9.x branches and it won't need it in 10.x either. I have not seen any convincing argument as to why leaving GCC in the base for 10.x impedes anything. Because clang isn't sufficient for so many non-x86 platforms we can't really start using clang-specific features yet anyway. -- John BaldwinReceived on Thu Aug 29 2013 - 12:58:25 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:40 UTC