From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Artem Hodyush" To: Cc: Subject: Re: type based aliasing again Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 03:25:00 -0000 Message-id: <00d501bf01b9$dc677b10$545a9090@uito-nt-server.duma.gov.ru> X-SW-Source: 1999-09/msg00783.html Richard Stallman wrote: >The only thing that is hard is when people argue, as you are doing, >against the very idea of accommodation. So please don't do that. There may be different degrees of accomodation. Issuing useful warning is one thing, altering the behavior of compiler when it sees suspicious code is another. The very idea that compiler should make an educated guess and decide which options to apply to my code gives me shudder. The software should do what I say, no more and no less. We have seen many attempts by various vendors to make their software 'smart', in the sense that it should do things that it supposes user wants it to do, without asking, because vendors believe that it will help them sell software to computer-impaired people. In my experience, the smarter software is, the closer it is to becoming unusable. I guess that people are worried because they see you proposing that gcc will also go that way. >Be that as it may, that question is a side issue. You are talking >about programmers running GCC on code that they are developing. Those >are just some of the users of GCC. Only some of the people running >GCC are running it on code they understand, or could attempt to debug. > >We must not make GCC decisions with only those people in mind. Speaking about side issues. If people running gcc don't bother to read release notes for the version of gcc they run, and don't know how to put a gcc option into the makefile, I'd say that they are not qualified to do their job. You can't be kind to everyone. Is it harsh not to allow people to drive a car, if they can't pass driver test? Yes I'm exaggerating, but I'm extremely frustrated by the poor quality of software that floods the market. And if you see gcc as install tool, I think that it's not possible to have both an install tool and a compiler in one bottle, er, package. > But, I believe the analysis for GCC *itself* is *much* simpler: > conform to the pertinent ANSI/ISO standards, etc. > >GCC does conform to these standards, when used with the proper set of >options. GCC does not yet conform neither to ANSI C 9X, nor to the ANSI C++ 98. > However, technical standards are not a moral authority. The >GNU Project policy is that we pay close attention to official >standards, but we don't slavishly obey them. I guess this is not the case with C and C++ standards, if you want serious developers to continue to use gcc. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Artem Hodyush" To: Cc: Subject: Re: type based aliasing again Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 18:02:00 -0000 Message-ID: <00d501bf01b9$dc677b10$545a9090@uito-nt-server.duma.gov.ru> X-SW-Source: 1999-09n/msg00783.html Message-ID: <19990930180200.MtnZUHlfSBAa64wJRlJJeyXrW66t12V_p9dBHZx6pGY@z> Richard Stallman wrote: >The only thing that is hard is when people argue, as you are doing, >against the very idea of accommodation. So please don't do that. There may be different degrees of accomodation. Issuing useful warning is one thing, altering the behavior of compiler when it sees suspicious code is another. The very idea that compiler should make an educated guess and decide which options to apply to my code gives me shudder. The software should do what I say, no more and no less. We have seen many attempts by various vendors to make their software 'smart', in the sense that it should do things that it supposes user wants it to do, without asking, because vendors believe that it will help them sell software to computer-impaired people. In my experience, the smarter software is, the closer it is to becoming unusable. I guess that people are worried because they see you proposing that gcc will also go that way. >Be that as it may, that question is a side issue. You are talking >about programmers running GCC on code that they are developing. Those >are just some of the users of GCC. Only some of the people running >GCC are running it on code they understand, or could attempt to debug. > >We must not make GCC decisions with only those people in mind. Speaking about side issues. If people running gcc don't bother to read release notes for the version of gcc they run, and don't know how to put a gcc option into the makefile, I'd say that they are not qualified to do their job. You can't be kind to everyone. Is it harsh not to allow people to drive a car, if they can't pass driver test? Yes I'm exaggerating, but I'm extremely frustrated by the poor quality of software that floods the market. And if you see gcc as install tool, I think that it's not possible to have both an install tool and a compiler in one bottle, er, package. > But, I believe the analysis for GCC *itself* is *much* simpler: > conform to the pertinent ANSI/ISO standards, etc. > >GCC does conform to these standards, when used with the proper set of >options. GCC does not yet conform neither to ANSI C 9X, nor to the ANSI C++ 98. > However, technical standards are not a moral authority. The >GNU Project policy is that we pay close attention to official >standards, but we don't slavishly obey them. I guess this is not the case with C and C++ standards, if you want serious developers to continue to use gcc.