Re: Compiler Revisions Should go Out As Well as Going Up.

[Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP>]

On 2013-12-11, Austin Obyrne <austin.obyrne@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Decoded, I am saying here that there is a tendency in my opinion to view new
> compiler versions in a hierarchal sequence that tacitly suggest one should
> always use the most recent compiler version.  I don?t think this is right and
> instead older compilers should still be kept in hand as befits the users?
> needs for specific applications without any suggestion of being outdated.
> Very often there is nothing to be gained except a whole load of trouble in
> changing to newer compiler versions of the same language.

Actually, I don't use the most recent compiler versions. However, I also don't
use compiler versions from around the late 1990s.

I do quite a bit of embedded work as a hobby and hence I have multiple gcc
toolchain versions installed for the various embedded environments I use.

About every couple of years or so, I go through a sequence of upgrading the
embedded and native gcc versions so that the oldest version is dropped and a
more recent version than the most recent version I was using is installed.
That's not the very latest version at that time, but a version that's been
out for a while and is perceived as a stable version.

I also use the same compiler toolchain versions to compile code written in
other languages such as C and C++ so that's also a factor as well as well
as the fact the packages being compiled have their own minimum required
gcc versions.

Simon.

-- 
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Microsoft: Bringing you 1980s technology to a 21st century world