From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Neil Booth To: Zack Weinberg Cc: "Kaveh R. Ghazi" , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Driver rewrite... (was Re: RFC: should we use -Werror?) Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2001 11:12:00 -0000 Message-id: <20010905191208.B7289@daikokuya.demon.co.uk> References: <200109050332.XAA14648@caip.rutgers.edu> <20010905103513.A395@codesourcery.com> <20010905184018.A6890@daikokuya.demon.co.uk> <20010905105415.B395@codesourcery.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-09/msg00116.html Zack Weinberg wrote:- > I think you're being too negative about the feedback. Perhaps... > Yes, there was a lot of static thrown out about losing the ability > to tweak specs at install time. I think that if you show up with a > compelling proof-of -concept implementation that does 80% of what > people want, faster and neater, they'll be willing to work out > better ways of doing the other 20%. It would be a lot of work to get it to that stage. For example, to get something suitable for a commit would mean touching every port, both for coding up routines to handle port-specific flags and to remove vairous stuff like all the macro gunk that currently exists. There's a lot of it, and it's repetetive, dull and can't be automated. So I didn't want to waste time on it if objections about the runtime configurability stuff and other nits were sticking, which they seemed to be as the thread died out. If other interesting mini projects stop grabbing my attention, I might pick it up again. Neil.