From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18643 invoked by alias); 19 Jan 2004 17:51:03 -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 18628 invoked from network); 19 Jan 2004 17:51:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO uniton.integrable-solutions.net) (62.212.99.186) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 19 Jan 2004 17:51:03 -0000 Received: from uniton.integrable-solutions.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uniton.integrable-solutions.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/SuSE Linux 0.6) with ESMTP id i0JHiR9b009655; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 18:44:27 +0100 Received: (from gdr@localhost) by uniton.integrable-solutions.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id i0JHiQek009654; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 18:44:26 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: uniton.integrable-solutions.net: gdr set sender to gdr@integrable-solutions.net using -f To: Robert Dewar Cc: Paul Koning , coyote@coyotegulch.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: gcc 3.5 integration branch proposal References: <16396.1201.530000.430277@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <400C17CD.5080408@gnat.com> From: Gabriel Dos Reis In-Reply-To: <400C17CD.5080408@gnat.com> Organization: Integrable Solutions Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 17:51:00 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg01313.txt.bz2 Robert Dewar writes: | 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. That is a good start :-) (But, I'm afraid there will be some divergence on what "typical" means. Do we consider Gerald's testcase typical? Do we consider template constructs found in Boot typical?). -- Gaby