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?=20 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>