Re: backward compatability of tools

[Bruce Korb]

Eric Siegerman wrote:

> Hmmm, that brings up GCC.  I know they have their own reasons for
> sticking with 2.13 (or had, last time I checked), but AC's
> dropping old-box support might be one more, given that GCC is
> seen as (among other things) a way to bootstrap the rest of GNU
> onto weird systems.
> 
> If people don't think this is an appropriate line of reasoning,
> I'll accept that, but it seemed worth mentioning.

Even GCC folks are starting to come to the realization that
it's not worth the developer time to squander it on maintaining
hobby boxes.  For the most part, GCC developers want good
development tools and they don't find them on featureless
ancient boxes.  Also, if you really want to know the GCC position,
post it to the GCC steering committee folks.  :-)