From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nick Ing-Simmons To: craig AT jcb-sc.com Cc: gcc AT gcc.gnu.org, nik AT tiuk.ti.com, rms AT gnu.org, law AT cygnus.com Subject: Re: type based aliasing again Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 10:48:00 -0000 Message-id: <199909151746.SAA11009@tiuk.ti.com> References: <13132.937411270@upchuck.cygnus.com> <199909151655.RAA05716@tiuk.ti.com> <19990915170504.15439.qmail@deer> X-SW-Source: 1999-09/msg00638.html writes: >>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. It can be both - let us agree to differ. > >Please stop lying about GCC breaking anything. It is the *code* >that is broken. It is now we are forced to use C rather than "the language supported by gcc-2.8.1" ;-) >The programmers must fix it. That is the division >of labor that the industry, as well as nature, have chosen. Help from the compiler (warnings) would make the programmers job easier. Warnings/errors would also make the "other" users of the compiler suspicious and make them track down and punish the programmers. > >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. Quick fix (add the flag) has been done for perl. We are looking at how to do the clean fix without performance hit - not to mention tracking down exactly where all the bugs actually are which is not always obvious. -- Nick Ing-Simmons Via, but not speaking for: Texas Instruments Ltd. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nick Ing-Simmons To: craig@jcb-sc.com Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, nik@tiuk.ti.com, rms@gnu.org, law@cygnus.com Subject: Re: type based aliasing again Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 18:02:00 -0000 Message-ID: <199909151746.SAA11009@tiuk.ti.com> References: <13132.937411270@upchuck.cygnus.com> <199909151655.RAA05716@tiuk.ti.com> <19990915170504.15439.qmail@deer> X-SW-Source: 1999-09n/msg00638.html Message-ID: <19990930180200.-1UIpsWXEL_3dTNgd9ujbVcY1HZo4sINI1Deh5wNODk@z> writes: >>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. It can be both - let us agree to differ. > >Please stop lying about GCC breaking anything. It is the *code* >that is broken. It is now we are forced to use C rather than "the language supported by gcc-2.8.1" ;-) >The programmers must fix it. That is the division >of labor that the industry, as well as nature, have chosen. Help from the compiler (warnings) would make the programmers job easier. Warnings/errors would also make the "other" users of the compiler suspicious and make them track down and punish the programmers. > >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. Quick fix (add the flag) has been done for perl. We are looking at how to do the clean fix without performance hit - not to mention tracking down exactly where all the bugs actually are which is not always obvious. -- Nick Ing-Simmons Via, but not speaking for: Texas Instruments Ltd.