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

[O. Hartmann]

Mikhail Teterin wrote:
> ÓÅÒÅÄÁ 13 ÇÒÕÄÅÎØ 2006 16:53, Scott Long ÎÁÐÉÓÁ×:
>> 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. 

I would second that. Having a compiler with features aiming modern 
omputer design wouldn't be a disadvantage and many people, like me, 
prefere using the systems compiler instead of one out of the ports.

> 
> 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.

I'm not very familiar with the compiler development, but it seemed to me 
  gcc 4.1 was like a interim solution. This arose due to the fast 
appeareance of it's successor ...

> 
>> 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.
> 
> We are moving from gcc-3.x to gcc-4.1. Compared to _that_ move, the
> difference between 4.1 and 4.2 is not very large. If you think otherwise -- 
> please say so explicitly. Thank you.
> 
> 	-mi
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-current at freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"