From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13763 invoked by alias); 19 Jan 2004 17:46:07 -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 13744 invoked from network); 19 Jan 2004 17:46:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nile.gnat.com) (205.232.38.5) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 19 Jan 2004 17:46:06 -0000 Received: from gnat.com (ppp1.gnat.com [205.232.38.211]) by nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 229DEF29F2; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 12:46:03 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <400C17CD.5080408@gnat.com> Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 17:46:00 -0000 From: Robert Dewar User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Paul Koning Cc: coyote@coyotegulch.com, gdr@integrable-solutions.net, gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: gcc 3.5 integration branch proposal References: <16396.1201.530000.430277@gargle.gargle.HOWL> In-Reply-To: <16396.1201.530000.430277@gargle.gargle.HOWL> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg01310.txt.bz2 Paul Koning wrote: > It wouldn't satisfy me. C++ is just as important as C, and it is > completely unreasonable to tell people that any host other than a > year or two is "marginal". > > A point to keep in mind is that laptops make good hosts, but laptops > are more memory-limited than desktops. Not really true these days. Most laptops have supported a gigabyte for years, and most laptops of today support two gigabytes. But that should be far beyond what is reasonably needed anyway. I think what would be most helpful is to try to agree very specifically on what is reasonable. For example, we might say: All typical existing C++ code should be able to be compiled on a 256 meg PC running GNU/Linux without significant thrashing. That seems a reasonable expectation. Then we consider any violation of this as a bug, to be fixed like any other bug.