On Tue, 23 May 2006, Anish Mistry wrote: > On a better note I've added support for FreeBSD 4.x that uses gcc > 2.95. The patches are in the linked tarball. These changes should > be merged into the FreeBSD ports tree in the next week or two.
gcc 2.95 is thruly ancient, and the gcc 2.95 fixes in your patch are just working around gcc 2.95's inability to deal with perfectly valid C99 code (the hunks just shuffle variable initiation around). The current code (which gcc 2.95 doesn't like) has better variable locality, which might even help the optimizer, and certainly makes for more readable code... Is there a *real* reason to apply those specific 2.95-compatiblity hunks upstream? No new Linux *or* FreeBSD 5.x install should need them, and neither does MacOS. To me it looks like something that should remain in the FreeBSD 4 ports patch. Of course, I am *not* talking about the FreeBSD *support* hunks in your patches -- these clearly should get merged upstream. I just wonder about the hunks specific to gcc 2.95 support. -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh ------------------------------------------------------- All the advantages of Linux Managed Hosting--Without the Cost and Risk! Fully trained technicians. The highest number of Red Hat certifications in the hosting industry. Fanatical Support. Click to learn more http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=107521&bid=248729&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ HPLIP-Devel mailing list HPLIP-Devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hplip-devel
