Pending GCC-3.1 upgrade - do or don't

Kevan Shea biffcool at
Wed May 8 09:29:58 PDT 2002

On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 05:15:25PM +0100, Ian Molton wrote:
> On Wed, 8 May 2002 10:00:56 -0400
> Kevan Shea <biffcool at> wrote:
> > How?  You keep saying that it's slower but don't link to any
> > benchmarks to prove it.  You keep saying you heard it's broke on lkml
> > and the gcc-dev list but don't produce any links to archives to prove
> > it.
> why provide links - just spend 5 mins skimming the archives!

I'll put it very simply and will then stop wasting everyones time
by continuing in this pointless endeavor

1. You've read these mails you're referring to (presumably)
2. I'm not you (presumably) and therefore don't know which mails you're
referring to.

If you were to say back up one single claim you've made in this entire
thread with some kind of outside verification (like other people have)
maybe I'd even feel interested enough to actually search the lists
myself, but the more you actively refuse to post links the more I have
to just assume that you're lying.  I don't see any other reason for why
someone would be so unwilling to backup their point, especially one
that they so vehemently claim is valid.

Kevan Shea

"Industrious people create industry.
Lazy people create civilization."
--Hideo Nakamura
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-dev' in the subject header of the message

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list