| 1 |
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 08:50:47 +0200 |
| 2 |
Luca Barbato <lu_zero@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > And saving your ass when you're using a broken compiler that |
| 4 |
> > generates broken code that would force you to reinstall a working |
| 5 |
> > compiler by hand when the package manager gets h0rked. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> You (upstream) are supposed to test and early users are supposed to |
| 8 |
> check their bleeding edge stuff is working if they care enough. |
| 9 |
> People using released programs that are in stable shouldn't have to |
| 10 |
> do that. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
If everyone running stable used the same base system, tool chain and |
| 13 |
configuration you would be right. But every Gentoo system is different, |
| 14 |
so there's no common target to test on. And it's fairly well |
| 15 |
established that lots stable Gentoo users have broken toolchains... |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> If your code doesn't survive a gcc release usually it's the code |
| 18 |
> being wrong most of the times. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
If you have bad code, yes. If you have good code, instead it's usually |
| 21 |
gcc's fault. Things like gcc bug 31899 are common enough to be a |
| 22 |
nuisance. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives