From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Dec 14 05:22:56 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: current@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DA5516A49E for ; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 05:22:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mail2.fluidhosting.com (mx21.fluidhosting.com [204.14.89.4]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 413A543CB0 for ; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 05:21:22 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 10155 invoked by uid 399); 14 Dec 2006 05:22:54 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO ?192.168.0.5?) (dougb@dougbarton.us@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 14 Dec 2006 05:22:54 -0000 X-Originating-IP: 127.0.0.1 Message-ID: <4580DFAB.3080601@FreeBSD.org> Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 21:22:51 -0800 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://www.freebsd.org/ User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.8 (X11/20061125) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mikhail Teterin References: <20061213192150.CF83D16A417@hub.freebsd.org> <200612131440.04076.mi+mx@aldan.algebra.com> <4580766A.600@samsco.org> <200612131711.50921.mi+mx@aldan.algebra.com> In-Reply-To: <200612131711.50921.mi+mx@aldan.algebra.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Let's use gcc-4.2, not 4.1 -- OpenMP X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 05:22:56 -0000 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