Re: Plea for minimal tagbits

On Thu, Apr 30, 1998 at 08:35:06AM +0200, Oscar Figueiredo wrote: That's *exactly* the reason why I want one and only one option being chosen. I did not know about this problem, even if I have the resources (i.e. solaris 2.5.1 and the Sun compiler) to solve it. People just compile without minimal tagbits and forget it. The opposite goes for, say, cygwin and the lack of valid DATA_SEG_BITS definition. There is the same kind of problem with union type and alpha. Union type is required on alpha. Nobody knows why, mostly because everybody forgot about it and every people compiling on alpha is adding --use-union-type without thinking about it. Now that I know about it, I'm going to track it (there is something inflooping in the gc code). This may or may not unravel other problems. Such habits are understandable, but bad when we're approaching a release. I wouldn't like to see "Use minimal tagbits on cygwin", "don't use them on solaris with sun's cc" and "use union type on alpha" becoming answers to FAQs in comp.emacs.xemacs. But it is very easy to miss them if the failure report happens to come in at the wrong time. So please people, if you have some experience of "if I don't do this and that it does not work on my system" and the information is not yet in the PROBLEMS file, say so. Loudly. Every other snapshot. Or it will come back and bite us for the release. And please Steve, at least when code freeze is enforced, settle for a common set of options and enforce them in configure.in. I, for instance, have access to 7 different systems[1], 13 compilers total. I won't try 16[2] different options combinations on each. OG. [1] More if you count e.g. Irix 6.2, 6.4 and 6.5 as different. [2] mule, indexed lrecord, minimal tagbits, union type. I may have missed something. Double the number for each option.