From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Martin v. Loewis" To: espie@quatramaran.ens.fr Cc: mark@codesourcery.com, egcs@egcs.cygnus.com Subject: Re: elided copy constructors Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1999 07:18:00 -0000 Message-id: <199903201510.QAA08826@mira.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de> In-reply-to: < 19990320142609.15873.qmail@quatramaran.ens.fr >(espie@quatramaran.ens.fr) References: <36F2CDC1.8B4FEC4A@netwood.net> <199903192313.AAA00798@mira.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de> <19990320142609.15873.qmail@quatramaran.ens.fr> <19990320142609.15873.qmail@quatramaran.ens.fr> X-SW-Source: 1999-03/msg00689.html [1 hire somebody] [2 ask somebody to do it for free] [3 do it yourself] > This alternative is NOT guaranteed to bring results. You may just be stupid > enough that you won't be able to fix it, or you may have stumbled into such > an horrid bug that extensive surgery to the whole compiler may be necessary, > in which case approach two is the only one that will work. I think here lies a terrible danger. IMHO, the only option that is guaranteed to work is option 1, and even then only if the amount of money is good enough so that the right people get involved. Option 2, typically, does *not* work, with the single exception that somebody didn't fix a bug because she was not aware of it. In most cases (especially long-standing bugs and missing features), maintainers are well-aware that there is that problem, and think that they fix it when they get to it. It doesn't get done because they never get to it. So, option 3 always worked for me. I don't remember a case where option 2 actually worked - except when the person I asked heard of it for the first time, and fixed it right-away. Regards, Martin From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Martin v. Loewis" To: espie@quatramaran.ens.fr Cc: mark@codesourcery.com, egcs@egcs.cygnus.com Subject: Re: elided copy constructors Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 23:46:00 -0000 Message-ID: <199903201510.QAA08826@mira.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de> References: <36F2CDC1.8B4FEC4A@netwood.net> <199903192313.AAA00798@mira.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de> <19990320142609.15873.qmail@quatramaran.ens.fr> X-SW-Source: 1999-03n/msg00694.html Message-ID: <19990331234600.l3XGLYPrlB3T1z2vVq-bvXuRsfQxg1GWSSOMBoGRV64@z> [1 hire somebody] [2 ask somebody to do it for free] [3 do it yourself] > This alternative is NOT guaranteed to bring results. You may just be stupid > enough that you won't be able to fix it, or you may have stumbled into such > an horrid bug that extensive surgery to the whole compiler may be necessary, > in which case approach two is the only one that will work. I think here lies a terrible danger. IMHO, the only option that is guaranteed to work is option 1, and even then only if the amount of money is good enough so that the right people get involved. Option 2, typically, does *not* work, with the single exception that somebody didn't fix a bug because she was not aware of it. In most cases (especially long-standing bugs and missing features), maintainers are well-aware that there is that problem, and think that they fix it when they get to it. It doesn't get done because they never get to it. So, option 3 always worked for me. I don't remember a case where option 2 actually worked - except when the person I asked heard of it for the first time, and fixed it right-away. Regards, Martin