From: Pavel Tsekov <ptsekov@syntrex.com>
To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Subject: WTF?!
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 08:40:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3BAA0DE9.7EC296EE@syntrex.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20010920112518.A28377@redhat.com>
Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 01:37:27AM -0400, Christopher Currie wrote:
> >Sorry for the cross-posting, but this regards a bug in libiberty and I
> >don't know whether gcc or binutils has ownership of it.
>
> If you are going to take it upon yourself to take a cygwin problem into
> other mailing lists, you really should check out the CVS sources to see
> if this has actually been solved or not.
>
> >On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 11:47:01AM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >> It is just C source code we're talking about, right? You have an editor?
> >> Look at the place where the errors are coming from and make an
> >> educated guess about fixing it.
> >>
> >> What is the worse that can happen? If you screw up do you think that
> >> this will cause gcc to subtly miscompile your code so that all of the
> >> add instructions are turned into sub instructions or something? That's
> >> not going to happen.
> >>
> >> You are all programmers right? Inspect the code. Invest five minutes
> >> worth of analysis into the problem.
> >>
> >> If this is too tough for you, try removing the offending file from the
> >> makefile or building from CVS sources.
> >>
> >> I can't believe that there are three messages on this subject from people
> >> who are apparently programmers without one suggested fix.
> >
> ><rant>
> >Probably because most of them are busy trying use the tools to do the
> >work they get paid to do, rather than spend the time fixing the tools.
> >Since backing out to the previous version allows them to do that, they've
> >done what's expected of them and logged a bug report that (IMHO) helps
> >a maintainer (who, I would think, either has volunteered or is paid to
> >do such things) track down what might be causing the problem.
> ></rant>
>
> Some points:
>
> 1) No one is paid to support this code.
>
> 2) No one has volunteered to support other people's efforts to compile the
> code.
>
> 3) No one was asking for a definitive fix. I was basically commenting on
> how strange it was that people who are supposed to be programmers were
> stalled for days over a problem that could have been solved by an #ifdef.
> The problem has been fixed definitively in sources.redhat.com CVS sources
> for weeks. However, that fix won't magically propagate to older source
> tar balls. So, a brain-dead simple fix to strerror.c is required.
>
> Either that or you can use the solution THAT I ALREADY SUGGESTED.
>
> 4) If someone is building the code on their own rather than using the binaries
> that *I did* volunteer to provide then it is either part of their job or
> they have some other reason for doing it. It's not part of my job in
> any way to track down their problems for them. I could build the programs
> just fine when I released them. If that changes over time, I'm not going
> to make a new release just to satisfy people who want to build things on
> their own. If someone needs to do that then they really should know what
> they are doing. Either that or they should pay someone to support them.
> Or, they could try to use the *latest* versions of the sources where any
> problems would be solved.
>
> 5) Even if we were to buy into your theory that I have either volunteered
> to help you build the tools or your even more inane theory that I am
> actually being *paid* to help people for free; merely reporting a problem
> with no more analysis than a cut and paste of an error message is hardly
> a way to help me out. Even if it was a vague help, the majority of this
> thread was comprised of "I am stalled too! I need a fix!" messages which
> conveyed no useful information.
>
> I haven't looked at your patch. You seem competent so I assume that it
> solves your problem.
>
> I also assume that a patch won't help most of the original posters who
> were complaining in the cygwin mailing list since it will require them
> to learn about both patch and autoconf. However, maybe there are some
> other previously silent but competent people like you who were also
> silently fuming over the injustice of not being able to compile their
> own version of the tools and maybe they will be able to use the solution
> that you provided.
>
> Or, you could always just remove strerror from the Makefile like I
> originally suggested...
>
> cgf
>
Cristopher, why dont just you stop reading those posts which actually
dont tend to be good enough for you ? I think if point 1 applies to
you then you are not being paid to read the mailing lists too - are you
?
So "silly" mails are easily to be recognized - you can just pass them
by.
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-09-20 8:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-09-18 0:05 Binutils and GCC Doug Johnson
2001-09-18 8:46 ` Christopher Faylor
2001-09-19 22:37 ` Binutils and GCC [LONG and mildly OT] Christopher Currie
2001-09-20 0:58 ` Pavel Tsekov
[not found] ` <20010920103848.B23076@mutation.ins.com>
2001-09-20 8:30 ` Binutils and GCC [LONGER and definitely OT] Pavel Tsekov
2001-09-20 8:24 ` Binutils and GCC [LONG and mildly OT] Christopher Faylor
2001-09-20 8:40 ` Pavel Tsekov [this message]
2001-09-20 9:06 ` WTF?! Christopher Faylor
2001-09-20 9:28 ` WTF?! Pavel Tsekov
2001-09-20 9:39 ` WTF?! Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)
2001-09-20 9:50 ` WTF?! Pavel Tsekov
2001-09-20 9:58 ` WTF?! Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)
2001-09-20 10:30 ` WTF?! Robert Praetorius
2001-09-20 10:47 ` WTF?! Christopher Faylor
2001-09-20 11:17 ` WTF?! Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)
2001-09-20 9:50 ` WTF?! Christopher Faylor
2001-09-20 12:30 ` Binutils and GCC Christopher Currie
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2001-09-20 9:23 WTF?! Churchill, Dan (MN65)
2001-09-21 2:28 ` WTF?! Robert Collins
[not found] <003c01c0adf4$f7777340$db011fac@fer.ucs.co.za>
2001-03-16 1:18 ` WTF? Robert Collins
2001-03-16 5:54 ` WTF? Earnie Boyd
2001-03-16 7:32 ` WTF? Christopher Faylor
2001-03-16 0:32 WTF? Frans Rossouw
2001-03-16 0:36 ` WTF? Robert Collins
1998-01-17 13:14 WTF?! Andrew Dolphin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=3BAA0DE9.7EC296EE@syntrex.com \
--to=ptsekov@syntrex.com \
--cc=cygwin@cygwin.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).