From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9826 invoked by alias); 20 Jan 2004 07:46:52 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 9806 invoked from network); 20 Jan 2004 07:46:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mallaury.noc.nerim.net) (62.4.17.102) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 20 Jan 2004 07:46:50 -0000 Received: from tetto.gentiane.org (espie.gentiane.org [62.212.102.210]) by mallaury.noc.nerim.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67F1C62D8B; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 08:46:48 +0100 (CET) Received: from tetto.gentiane.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tetto.gentiane.org (8.12.9/8.12.1) with ESMTP id i0K7kLlM010170; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 08:46:28 +0100 (CET) Received: (from espie@localhost) by tetto.gentiane.org (8.12.9/8.12.1/Submit) id i0K7kAJf004433; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 08:46:11 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 07:46:00 -0000 From: Marc Espie To: Robert Dewar Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: gcc 3.5 integration branch proposal Message-ID: <20040120074606.GA1342@tetto.gentiane.org> Reply-To: espie@nerim.net References: <90200277-4301-11D8-BDBD-000A95B1F520@apple.com> <200401192207.58846.ebotcazou@libertysurf.fr> <1074546942.11041.8.camel@dzur.sfbay.redhat.com> <200401192246.52526.ebotcazou@libertysurf.fr> <1074550095.28477.35.camel@pc> <20040119222845.GA26266@tetto.gentiane.org> <400CA445.8090102@gnat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <400CA445.8090102@gnat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg01452.txt.bz2 On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 10:45:09PM -0500, Robert Dewar wrote: > Marc Espie wrote: > >Maybe most of you are actually working for companies, and so don't really > >care about the toll in terms of human costs ? I mean, sure, hire a new > >programmer, or buy a new $2000 machine. But real hobbyists ? We don't > >really have ways to hire new people. And a new $2000 machine means less > >network cards or gfx cards to play with and port drivers to. > Please don't make strawmen. As my previous message made clear, the > figure of $2000 is bogus, $400 is sufficient, and that *included* a > 17" monitor and the license fee for XP. Show me anything that isn't Intel-based with this kind of performance/cost ratio. Do you think it doesn't matter ? Then we'd better simply stop writing code for sparc64, powerpc, hppa, and declare them totally dead.