From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32264 invoked by alias); 16 Mar 2004 01:00:25 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 32252 invoked from network); 16 Mar 2004 01:00:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.6) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 16 Mar 2004 01:00:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 21028 invoked from network); 16 Mar 2004 01:00:23 -0000 Received: from taltos.codesourcery.com (zack@66.92.218.83) by mail.codesourcery.com with DES-CBC3-SHA encrypted SMTP; 16 Mar 2004 01:00:23 -0000 Received: by taltos.codesourcery.com (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 15 Mar 2004 17:00:23 -0800 To: Scott Robert Ladd Cc: GCC Subject: Re: GCC viciously beaten by ICC in trig test! References: <20040315031921.54A30109AF2@earth-ox.its.caltech.edu> <4055A3D3.6050006@coyotegulch.com> From: Zack Weinberg Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 01:00:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <4055A3D3.6050006@coyotegulch.com> (Scott Robert Ladd's message of "Mon, 15 Mar 2004 07:38:43 -0500") Message-ID: <87y8q1a9nc.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110002 (No Gnus v0.2) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2004-03/txt/msg00761.txt.bz2 Scott Robert Ladd writes: > Perhaps GCC could provide a clean ISO C library that is enabled with > the -std=c99 switch? After all, GCC does include an ISO C++ library, > and a Fortran 95 library (in tree-ssa). My opinion of this notion is summed up by this excerpt of a message I posted to a private news hierarchy back near the end of 2003. ===== | I can't work out whether you're of the opinion that a deeply | incestuous relationship between a C compiler project and a C | library project is a good thing or a bad thing. [...] In the abstract, I think that *if* the "C language runtime" part of a C library were disentangled from the "low-level operating system interface" part, the "useful but nonstandard utility routines" part, and the "shared object loader" part, then it would be good to have a close relationship between the language runtime project and the compiler project. The other projects, however, ought to be prohibited from communicating with the language runtime and compiler teams except via standards committees. (They don't have to be formal and ISO-recognized or anything; an IETFish process would be fine.) This, however, will never happen (disentanglement would require redesigning the entire C library and bits of the language), and so I am in favor of generally distant relations between compiler and library teams. ===== zw