Re: current vax cannot boot and lvalue casts in arch/vax/boot
Jan-Benedict Glaw <jbglaw <at> lug-owl.de>
2006-06-15 08:25:46 GMT
On Wed, 2006-06-14 13:50:56 -0400, Kirk Russell <kirk <at> ba23.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2006, A. Wik wrote:
> > How come there's such an apparent eagerness about upgrading GCC,
> > anyway? Typically the only noticeable change from an older
> > version is the breakage of features and noticeable increases in
> > memory consumption and compilation time.
> I think it is a shame that gcc has such a monopoly with OSS projects.
> Some competition would be good. It appears others are considering
> this -- see "Why haven't we seen an OpenCC":
Well, there *are* even commercially supported GCC versions with
specific patches solving specific problems (usually additional CPU
or userland features), but after all, building a well-working compiler
isn't exactly simple.
I recognize other compilers and some of them do a good job for
specific tasks (tcc comes to mind). But to me, the final goal looks
more like "a compiler that is easily portable to a hugh number of
platforms." GCC fits, except for the "easily" part, very well.
I actually don't care about the very best optimizations. First of all,
I care about correct code generation and easy portability,
optimization comes next. So if there's an alternative to GCC with
isn't a full desaster in terms of resulting binary speed, it's
welcome. Though keep in mind that hacking hours are limited and I'm
nut all that sure if it's actually clever to feed these into more than