On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 07:18:38 -0700 (PDT)
Darrell Anderson <humanreadable@...> wrote:

> > 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.
But here g++ developers *do* provide backwards compatibility, it is
called -fpermissive. And there is no "bleeding edge" at all unless you
consider C++98 to be a bleeding edge standard.
Anyway, old compilers still work. On my Slackware 13.1 system, I have
g++-3.4 installed into /opt, and I can use it to compile a working
program against system Qt4 thanks to system g++ being backwards
compatible with g++-3.4 in terms of ABI.
> 
> Darrell
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> trinity-devel-unsubscribe@... For additional
> commands, e-mail: trinity-devel-help@... Read
> list messages on the web archive:
> http://trinity-devel.pearsoncomputing.net/ Please remember not to
> top-post:
> http://trinity.pearsoncomputing.net/mailing_lists/#top-posting
>