On 5/11/23 2:24 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > Please be serious, and please don't mock your opponents. This is a > serious discussion of a serious subject, not a Twitter post.
I responded with precisely the degree of seriousness as the statement I responded to. For the record, I believe both statements to have been serious. Not necessarily correct, but serious. > Back to the subject: the guarantees I would personally like to have is > that the current GCC development team sees backward compatibility as > an important goal, and will try not to break old programs without very > good technical reasons. At least in Emacs development, that is the > consideration that is very high on our priority list when making > development decisions. It would be nice if GCC (and any other GNU > project, for that matter) would do the same, because being able to > upgrade important tools and packages without fear is something users > value very much. Take it from someone who uses GCC on various > platforms since version 1.40. This discussion thread is about having very good technical reasons -- as explained multiple times, including instances where you agreed that the technical reasons were good. Furthermore, even despite those technical reasons, GCC is *still* committed to not breaking those old programs anyway. GCC merely wants to make those old programs have to be compiled in an "old-programs" mode. Can you explain to me how you think this goal conflicts with your goal? -- Eli Schwartz
