On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 12:25:15PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 08:37:57AM +0200, Matthieu Herrb wrote: > > > I have to repeat this every time I send a patch for gcc 2.95... :)=20 > > > > In fairness, it is rather unintuitive that an allegedly supported > > OS/architecture combination must have the absolute newest X server, yet > > hasn't managed to update its compiler in just over 11 years[0]. > > Well, GCC 2.95.3 was a pretty good C89 compiler[1], and apart from the > code/declaration interleaving issue, it supports all commonly used C99 > features. Later GCC versions are much, much slower, tend to have more > (or at least different) optimizer bugs, and don't really generate > significantly faster code. It really is a problem if the build time > for the OpenBSD base systems goes up from a day to almost three days > on a SparcStation 20. > > OpenBSD tries to deliver an OS that is conistent on all supported > architectures. It's bad enough that we can't have the same C compiler > for all our platforms. Besides, applications will require features > only available in newer X servers at some point.
I'm sure there are good reasons for it; my point was mainly that I can't with a straight face say that an architecture is well-maintained if it has not seen a usable compiler update in a decade. Cheers, Daniel
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
