Let's use gcc-4.2, not 4.1 -- OpenMP

[Scott Long]

Doug Barton wrote:
> Mikhail Teterin wrote:
>> ?????? 13 ??????? 2006 16:53, Scott Long ???????:
>>> And I say that FreeBSD shouldn't be a beta-tester for new, experimental
>>> compiler features.
>> We don't have to start using OpenMP in the base and no port will be _forced_ 
>> to use it either. But having a compiler _capable of it_ will be very good. 
>>
>> Unless you deem the entire gcc-4.2 to be "new and experimental" (I think, 4.3 
>> is such), your above-quoted argument is not valid.
> 
> Let's start over. I have a core 2 duo box so I'm interested, and I
> agree with you that at least 2 cores is going to be the "norm" sooner
> than later. So can you tell us what the benefits and risks are of 4.2
> vs. 4.1? I think someone already put forward the idea that if we were
> to adopt 4.2 that we'd have a longer support cycle, which sounds like
> a good thing to me; but I'm nowhere near an expert.
> 
>>> I also say that words and opinions are cheaper than actions.
>> Thank you very much, Scott, for this timely and uniquely insightful reminder. 
>> This important point is almost never raised on the FreeBSD mailing lists, 
>> which so often leads participants to think, that actions are cheaper than 
>> words and opinions.
> 
> I can certainly appreciate your frustration, but the problem we face
> is that there is no limit to the number of people who are sure that
> they know what the right thing to do is, as long as someone else is
> doing the work. As I'm sure you can imagine, that gets tiresome really
> fast when one is busy actually _doing_ the work.
> 
> You make a good point in that it's not too late to at least consider
> moving to 4.2 instead, so why don't you come up with some more
> concrete evidence to back your claim.
> 
> Doug
> 

It should be noted that the final line of my email was a poke at myself 
as well, since all that I have to provide is an opinion, while others
are doing the actual work.

Scott