From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KnCx7-0001hM-G2 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 07 Oct 2008 09:50:17 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KnCx6-0001gT-1U for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 07 Oct 2008 09:50:17 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=41191 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KnCx5-0001gH-FY for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 07 Oct 2008 09:50:15 -0400 Received: from mail.codesourcery.com ([65.74.133.4]:52134) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KnCx5-0001Jh-2k for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 07 Oct 2008 09:50:15 -0400 From: Paul Brook Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [patch 1/2] machine struct - use C99 initializers Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 14:50:09 +0100 References: <48EA28DC.40604@sgi.com> <200810070007.59487.paul@codesourcery.com> <20081006.173822.-1749749577.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <20081006.173822.-1749749577.imp@bsdimp.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200810071450.10186.paul@codesourcery.com> Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org Cc: andreas.faerber@web.de, jes@sgi.com > : If a host system hasn't bothered upgrading their toolchain in 10 years > : then I refuse to care. If you really want to run and ancient obsolete OS > : you should expect to run equally ancient software. > > You assume that all upgrades are a good thing. There are often > serious regressions in newer software, especially in not Intel > platforms, that makes it much harder to upgrade and have a working > system afterwards. > > I'm saying there needs to be a balance between the latest and > greatest, and known working software... IMHO anything using gcc2 has the balance tipped completely the wrong way, and requires a disproportionately large amount of effort to support. I make a distinction between systems that are a few of revisions behind the bleeding edge, and systems that are not making enough effort to stay current. If we were requiring gcc4 then I'd agree with you. However I think sufficient time has passed that it's reasonable to expect at least gcc3. As a side note, I'd be surprised if most modern c++ code even compiled with gcc2.95. The language implemented by g++2.95 only bears passing resemblance to modern c++, which is the reason the ABI is completely different. > [Jes wrote] > One interim step could be for OSes like BeOS to switch to egcs or Red > Hat's old gcc-2.96 base. I believe both support C99 style struct > initializers while still sticking to the old C++ ABI. I wouldn't touch "2.96" unless you absolutely have to (i.e. you're still running RH7 systems). There's about a million different variants, most of which are broken. Paul