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

[Rich Felker]

On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 10:05:29AM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> Hi
> 
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 10:58:04AM +0300, Ivan Kalvachev wrote:
> > 2006/7/11, Uoti Urpala <uoti.urpala at pp1.inet.fi>:
> > >On Mon, 2006-07-10 at 21:10 +0200, Roberto Togni wrote:
> > >> On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 08:53:38 +0300
> > >> Uoti Urpala <uoti.urpala at pp1.inet.fi> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > The gcc 2 branch has been dead upstream for a long time. Supporting it
> > >> > requires frequent workarounds especially for variable declarations. The
> > >> > repository has already not compiled with gcc-2.95 for nearly 3 weeks 
> > >and
> > >>
> > >> Since the only requirement to support gcc 2.95 is avoiding mixing
> > >> code and declarations I'm against dropping support for it. It does not
> > >> introduce any functional limitation in the code.
> > >
> > >It is not the only requirement. It is the one that comes up often, in
> > >code developers normally write and in patches people send us, and thus
> > >has nontrivial cost even if the workaround in each individual case is
> > >simple. There are other features in newer compilers that could be used
> > >once support for gcc 2.95 is dropped.
> > 
> > like?
> 
> yes, id like to know that too ...
> 
> * mixing declarations and code, seems few really want that, my oppinion here
>   is it might be nice in some cases but its not enough to drop support for a
>   compiler ...

rarely useful, usually very very bad.

> * 10 params asms (we also would have to drop support for several other gcc 
>   versions)

useful but as you said before lots of issues.

> * intrinsics, well gcc until 4.? generated terribly bad code for intrinsics

should not be used; if you're writing asm write asm dammit.. don't try
to extend the C language to include asm.

> * some gnu stuff which would make mplayer no longer comple on iso-c compilers

aka anti-feature

rich