Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 10:00:02 +0100 From: David Chisnall <theraven@theravensnest.org> To: Marius Strobl <marius@alchemy.franken.de> Cc: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>, svn-src-head@FreeBSD.org, svn-src-all@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r236137 - head/contrib/gcc/config/i386 Message-ID: <15CED26F-127B-4736-9E96-6315D6303B31@theravensnest.org> In-Reply-To: <20120530080151.GX90133@alchemy.franken.de> References: <201205270527.q4R5Rm44028055@svn.freebsd.org> <20120528190355.GA42283@alchemy.franken.de> <20120528204728.GD2358@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <20120529224833.GW90133@alchemy.franken.de> <20120530034747.GJ2358@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <20120530080151.GX90133@alchemy.franken.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 30 May 2012, at 09:01, Marius Strobl wrote: > Ehm, yes, but given that this wouldn't be the first such flag we have > is avoiding it really worth the link time and run time overheads in > the long term? Given the small overhead of the extra hashes, yes. At some point in the future, we can turn off the older ones and get a tiny reduction in overhead, but doing it now would cause much more pain for users in not being able to copy binaries from slightly newer to slightly older machines than we'd save from a tiny increase in binary size. This is the archetypal change for incremental deployment, let's not make our users' lives difficult just because we can. David Who doesn't want to be woken up by mobs of users with flaming torches and pitchforks.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?15CED26F-127B-4736-9E96-6315D6303B31>