Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 21:22:51 -0800 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: Mikhail Teterin <mi+mx@aldan.algebra.com> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Let's use gcc-4.2, not 4.1 -- OpenMP Message-ID: <4580DFAB.3080601@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <200612131711.50921.mi%2Bmx@aldan.algebra.com> References: <20061213192150.CF83D16A417@hub.freebsd.org> <200612131440.04076.mi%2Bmx@aldan.algebra.com> <4580766A.600@samsco.org> <200612131711.50921.mi%2Bmx@aldan.algebra.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Mikhail Teterin wrote:
> ?????? 13 ??????? 2006 16:53, Scott Long ???????:
>> And I say that FreeBSD shouldn't be a beta-tester for new, experimental
>> compiler features.
>
> We don't have to start using OpenMP in the base and no port will be _forced_
> to use it either. But having a compiler _capable of it_ will be very good.
>
> Unless you deem the entire gcc-4.2 to be "new and experimental" (I think, 4.3
> is such), your above-quoted argument is not valid.
Let's start over. I have a core 2 duo box so I'm interested, and I
agree with you that at least 2 cores is going to be the "norm" sooner
than later. So can you tell us what the benefits and risks are of 4.2
vs. 4.1? I think someone already put forward the idea that if we were
to adopt 4.2 that we'd have a longer support cycle, which sounds like
a good thing to me; but I'm nowhere near an expert.
>> I also say that words and opinions are cheaper than actions.
>
> Thank you very much, Scott, for this timely and uniquely insightful reminder.
> This important point is almost never raised on the FreeBSD mailing lists,
> which so often leads participants to think, that actions are cheaper than
> words and opinions.
I can certainly appreciate your frustration, but the problem we face
is that there is no limit to the number of people who are sure that
they know what the right thing to do is, as long as someone else is
doing the work. As I'm sure you can imagine, that gets tiresome really
fast when one is busy actually _doing_ the work.
You make a good point in that it's not too late to at least consider
moving to 4.2 instead, so why don't you come up with some more
concrete evidence to back your claim.
Doug
--
This .signature sanitized for your protection
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4580DFAB.3080601>