| 1 |
On Thu, 6 Jul 2006 14:29:39 +0200 "Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò" |
| 2 |
<flameeyes@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
| On Thursday 06 July 2006 14:19, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 4 |
| > Sounds rather flaky and unreliable... |
| 5 |
| Sounds rather vague and without arguments. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Well, you're assuming that a) everyone's using a C compiler, b) that |
| 8 |
gcc has the slightest clue what it's doing, c) that the user has no |
| 9 |
problem using nasty hacks to regain control, d) that this information |
| 10 |
is only needed at compile time, e) that various gcc internal |
| 11 |
definitions won't change... You're adding a lot of complexity, and thus |
| 12 |
room for very weird breakages, to something that doesn't need it. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
-- |
| 15 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
| 16 |
Mail : ciaran dot mccreesh at blueyonder.co.uk |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
-- |
| 20 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives