<html> <head> <base href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/" /> </head> <body> <div> <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - BUILD FAILED: why : forced (dist) upgrade for gcc 3.4.6 over a BIT COUNT, __builtin_ctz" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=86368#c1">Comment # 1</a> on <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - BUILD FAILED: why : forced (dist) upgrade for gcc 3.4.6 over a BIT COUNT, __builtin_ctz" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=86368">bug 86368</a> from <a class="email" href="mailto:johnandsara2@cox.net" title="debguy <johnandsara2@cox.net>"> debguy</a> <pre> (all i meant with comments are: goal is not to continually upgrade gcc, bison, etc, causing old code to be incompatible and faile: but to compile new software: which is easily possible with early tools, new ELF or arch aside. __builtin could be a macro or check to see if accel was avail, rather than using a tweak in gcc only new gcc has. gcc is not the place to add convenience functions: it's just not where they go. libc might be. even then for a bit count that's the wrong avenue to expect C libs to be a "perl, unix in a big module" of every new new bithack stacked against every kernel support of. i was pretty user processor support hacks are per arch in kernel, and lib c sparsely supported them and driver coders commonly checked in the driver code where useful for such, having both choices on hand)</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>