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 >