This is the mail archive of the crossgcc@sourceware.org mailing list for the crossgcc project.
See the CrossGCC FAQ for lots more information.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
Arnaud Lacombe <lacombar@gmail.com> writes: > Until you spend a month tracking down a compiler issue because someone > pay more care about buildability than correctness, which compilers are > all about. I am sorry, but I do simply not agree that correctness comes over buildability for compilers. Especially not if you bu this mean: "if it cannot _prove_ to always producec correct code, the compiler will be better of not being able to build any code at all". > If buildroot people had taken this to gcc guys, we would not even have > this discussion. And if Yann refuse to take in patches unless they are ultimately proven to be 100% correct in all cases, we most likely will not have working cross compilers, which is the sole purpose of ct-ng. You seem to be confusing the purpose of ct-ng with a goal of improving general GCC quality. While that is a worthwhile goal, which I believe all users of ct-ng will be more than happy to see pursued, it simply is not the primary goal of ct-ng. ct-ng is here to allow the masses to build usable cross-compiler. Even at the risk that it might produce bad code caused by some of the included patches. My $0.02. /Esben -- For unsubscribe information see http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faq
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |