[MPlayer-dev-eng] [PATCH] Drop support for gcc-2.95

[Uoti Urpala]

On Mon, 2006-07-10 at 08:04 +0200, Attila Kinali wrote:
> > The gcc 2 branch has been dead upstream for a long time. Supporting it
> > requires frequent workarounds especially for variable declarations. 
> 
> Workarounds? I only remember one workaround because of
> a bug in 2.95, but that was in an asm section. C89 style variable
> declarations are hardly a workaround.

I consider them to be workarounds. Even if you want to use a different
name, they still cause the same harm: require writing code in a
different way than you would do naturally. "Need to rewrite parts of
code because it doesn't work under 2.95" is the problem. It seems I'm
not the only one who writes such code unless I'm specifically paying
attention to what obsolete-compiler workarounds I should currently be
using.

> You forget another argument: 2.95 has fewer bugs than 3.x or 4.x,
> thus whenever someone suspects a gcc bug, first thing they
> do is to compile it with 2.95.

I don't think this is true. Who actually tries compiling with gcc-2.95?
How often does this happen?