Will GCC eventually support correct code compilation?

Will GCC eventually support correct code compilation?

[Dave Blanchard]

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

Re: Will GCC eventually support correct code compilation?

[David Brown]

On 27/05/2023 20:16, Dave Blanchard wrote:
> 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.
> 

I think your idea of "proof" might differ from that of everyone else. 
The GCC developers are entirely aware that their tools have bugs and 
scope for improvement, but anyone who has followed the project for any 
length of time can see it has continually progressed in many ways. 
There are regularly minor regressions, and occasionally serious issues - 
but the serious issues get fixed.

This is open source software.  If newer versions were "getting provably 
worse over time", then people would simply fork earlier versions and use 
them.  That's what happens in projects where a significant number of 
users or developers feel the project is moving in the wrong direction.

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

Now I am sure that you don't know what "proof" is.  In regard to 
documentation, this thread proves that GCC's documentation is not 
perfect, that the GCC developers know this, that they ask people for 
suggestions for improvement, and that they keep track of suggestions or 
complaints so that they can be fixed when time and resources allow.

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

Feel free to do so.

> 
>> Remember, these are people with /no/ obligation to help you.
> 
> ... and it often shows!

My experience, like that of most people (judging from the mailing lists 
and the bugzilla discussions I have read), is different - those who 
treat the GCC developers politely and with the respect due any fellow 
human, get a great deal of help.  They might not always agree on what 
should be changed, but even then you can generally come out of the 
discussion with an understanding of /why/ they cannot or will not change 
GCC as you'd like.

But - like everyone else - the GCC developers can quickly lose interest 
in helping those who come across as rude, demanding, unhelpful and 
wilfully ignorant.

> 
>> 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...?

No, it is not.

> 
> 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?
> 

It /is/ for such discussions.  This thread has not been a discussion - 
it has been driven by someone who preferred to yell and whine rather 
than discuss, and insisted on continuing here rather than filing bug 
reports in the right places.  The GCC developers prefer to work /with/ 
the users in finding out how to make the toolchain better - /that/ is 
what the mailing lists are for.

Re: Will GCC eventually support correct code compilation?

[Jason Merrill]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 519 bytes --]

On Sat, May 27, 2023 at 2:15 PM Dave Blanchard <dave@killthe.net> wrote:

> 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?
>

For discussions, absolutely.  Not for Usenet-style flame wars like the one
he and you seem determined to start.

If you lead with "your work is bad and you should feel bad" that doesn't
tend to lead to constructive discussion.

Jason

Will GCC eventually support correct code compilation?

[Dave Blanchard]

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