Will GCC eventually support correct code compilation?

[Dave Blanchard <dave@killthe.net>]

On Fri, 26 May 2023 18:44:41 +0200
David Brown via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:

> On 26/05/2023 17:49, Stefan Kanthak wrote:
> 
> > I don't like to argue with idiots: they beat me with experience!
> > 
> > Stefan
> > 
> 
> Stefan, you are clearly not happy about the /free/ compiler you are 
> using, and its /free/ documentation (which, despite its flaws, is better 
> than I have seen for most other compilers).

When the flaws continue to stack up as things get provably worse over time, at some point you need to stop patting yourself on the back, riding on the coattails of your past successes, and get to work making things right.

At the very least, GCC documentation is HORRIBLE, as this previous thread proves.

> Instead of filing a bug report, as you have been asked to do, or reading 
> the documentation, or thinking, or posting to an appropriate mailing 
> list, you have chosen to rant, yell, shout at and insult the very people 
> who could make the changes and improvements you want.

Actually, no, that's not what happened. He made a valid observation and got the run-around; the typical "just RTFM noob" treatment, despite pointing out again and again that the documentation LIES. 

The overall point however was successfully buried in the noise: looks like the code quality of GCC is shit anymore.

If you hand me a pile of shit wrapped up nicely in a plastic bag, guess what: I still don't want it, even if it's free. So I think this man (and the people of this mailing list) deserve a real explanation. Why does GCC generate such shit code?

> So who, exactly, do you think is acting like an idiot?  I'd say it is 
> the rude and arrogant fool that is sawing off the branch he is sitting on.

If the branch is rotten and splintered then maybe it's time to get off that branch and climb onto another one.

> Remember, these are people with /no/ obligation to help you. 

... and it often shows!

> Some do gcc development as voluntary contributions, others are paid to work on 
> it - but they are not paid by /you/.  And none are paid to sit and 
> listen to your tantrums.

So is this proof of the technical and intellectually bankruptcy of the open source development model, or...?

If nobody wants to have detailed discussions about the technical workings of a very serious tool that millions are relying on day in and day out, what is this mailing list FOR, exactly?

Dave