From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Dec 14 05:28:04 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 ED69A16A403; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 05:28:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Received: from pooker.samsco.org (pooker.samsco.org [168.103.85.57]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F348743CA4; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 05:26:30 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Received: from [192.168.254.11] (phobos.samsco.home [192.168.254.11]) (authenticated bits=0) by pooker.samsco.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id kBE5RlJV018728; Wed, 13 Dec 2006 22:27:52 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Message-ID: <4580E0D1.40605@samsco.org> Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 22:27:45 -0700 From: Scott Long User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X; en-US; rv:1.8.0.7) Gecko/20060910 SeaMonkey/1.0.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Doug Barton References: <20061213192150.CF83D16A417@hub.freebsd.org> <200612131440.04076.mi+mx@aldan.algebra.com> <4580766A.600@samsco.org> <200612131711.50921.mi+mx@aldan.algebra.com> <4580DFAB.3080601@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4580DFAB.3080601@FreeBSD.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=3.8 tests=ALL_TRUSTED autolearn=failed version=3.1.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.1 (2006-03-10) on pooker.samsco.org Cc: Mikhail Teterin , 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 05:28:05 -0000 Doug Barton wrote: > 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 > It should be noted that the final line of my email was a poke at myself as well, since all that I have to provide is an opinion, while others are doing the actual work. Scott