From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: craig AT jcb-sc.com
To: nik AT tiuk.ti.com
Cc: craig AT jcb-sc.com
Subject: Re: type based aliasing again
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 10:08:00 -0000
Message-id: <19990915170504.15439.qmail@deer>
References: <13132.937411270@upchuck.cygnus.com> <199909151655.RAA05716@tiuk.ti.com>
X-SW-Source: 1999-09/msg00636.html

>What you repeatedly miss is that there are many many more
>people that use gcc as the "free software install tool" than there are 
>who actually write programs. 

What you, and others, repeatedly miss is that GCC is a compiler,
not a free-software install tool.

If I wanted to work on a free-software install tool, I'd work on RPM
or something like that.

>Having the "new improved" gcc break previously stable and trusted
>free software does the movement as a whole no good at all.

Please stop lying about GCC breaking anything.  It is the *code*
that is broken.  The programmers must fix it.  That is the division
of labor that the industry, as well as nature, have chosen.

If you think the problem is so bad, then go and fix *it* in all the
code you think is too "stable and trusted" to be permitted to fail
due to its own bugs.  Do not make GCC worse by having it paper over
the problem for any amount of time.  That does a long-term disservice
to users.  I refuse to participate in pandering to users' short-term
wants by threatening our ability to meet their long-term *needs*.

        tq vm, (burley)

From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: craig@jcb-sc.com
To: nik@tiuk.ti.com
Cc: craig@jcb-sc.com
Subject: Re: type based aliasing again
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 18:02:00 -0000
Message-ID: <19990915170504.15439.qmail@deer>
References: <13132.937411270@upchuck.cygnus.com> <199909151655.RAA05716@tiuk.ti.com>
X-SW-Source: 1999-09n/msg00636.html
Message-ID: <19990930180200.FjEKDmmFXAuF6qlAB5NWfLq8JQDZ6H4M2AkdTE1VJGI@z>

>What you repeatedly miss is that there are many many more
>people that use gcc as the "free software install tool" than there are 
>who actually write programs. 

What you, and others, repeatedly miss is that GCC is a compiler,
not a free-software install tool.

If I wanted to work on a free-software install tool, I'd work on RPM
or something like that.

>Having the "new improved" gcc break previously stable and trusted
>free software does the movement as a whole no good at all.

Please stop lying about GCC breaking anything.  It is the *code*
that is broken.  The programmers must fix it.  That is the division
of labor that the industry, as well as nature, have chosen.

If you think the problem is so bad, then go and fix *it* in all the
code you think is too "stable and trusted" to be permitted to fail
due to its own bugs.  Do not make GCC worse by having it paper over
the problem for any amount of time.  That does a long-term disservice
to users.  I refuse to participate in pandering to users' short-term
wants by threatening our ability to meet their long-term *needs*.

        tq vm, (burley)