> Generally the gcc changes are to provide for the future,
> unfortunately not giving that much weight to the past. No we are not the only
> large project affected, but we are hit especially hard due to the small
> manpower-to-codebase_size of this project. Where other large
> projects, k4, gnome, etc.. may have hundreds of developers to help with
> changes, we have a relative few.

This the overwhelming attitude throughout free/libre software developers: screw backwards compatibility. Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead with bleeding edge!

I understand the reasoning: much less overhead and tighter code. Yet idealism seldom satisfies reality. Backwards compatibility is necessary.

Darrell