From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-88881-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 23390 invoked by alias); 14 Jan 2004 00:26:26 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 23377 invoked from network); 14 Jan 2004 00:26:24 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO uniton.integrable-solutions.net) (62.212.99.186)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 14 Jan 2004 00:26:24 -0000
Received: from uniton.integrable-solutions.net (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by uniton.integrable-solutions.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/SuSE Linux 0.6) with ESMTP id i0E0KF9b011373;
	Wed, 14 Jan 2004 01:20:16 +0100
Received: (from gdr@localhost)
	by uniton.integrable-solutions.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id i0E0KFS0011372;
	Wed, 14 Jan 2004 01:20:15 +0100
X-Authentication-Warning: uniton.integrable-solutions.net: gdr set sender to gdr@integrable-solutions.net using -f
To: Geoff Keating <geoffk@geoffk.org>
Cc: Paul Koning <pkoning@equallogic.com>, gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: gcc 3.5 integration branch proposal
References: <DD674EB8-460F-11D8-A1CA-0030657EA24A@apple.com>
	<200401132241.i0DMfbT28126@makai.watson.ibm.com>
	<202ADE61-461E-11D8-8072-000A95DA505C@dberlin.org>
	<16388.32288.690096.480227@gargle.gargle.HOWL>
	<jmvfnfs8ji.fsf@desire.geoffk.org>
From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net>
In-Reply-To: <jmvfnfs8ji.fsf@desire.geoffk.org>
Organization: Integrable Solutions
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 00:26:00 -0000
Message-ID: <m3ad4rfkjk.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg00836.txt.bz2

Geoff Keating <geoffk@geoffk.org> writes:

| Paul Koning <pkoning@equallogic.com> writes:
| 
| >  >> * Correct code generation * Fewer ICEs * Standards conformance *
| >  >> Compilation speed * Performance * Features * Release frequency *
| >  >> Release timeliness
| >  >> 
| >  >> We need to figure out how to balance those goals better without
| >  >> losing ground in areas where we recently have been improving.
| > 
| > I can see why some of this ordering would be subject to disagreement,
| > but I would hope that there also are partial orderings that are NOT
| > debatable. 
| > 
| > The general rule of software engineering is that correctness comes
| > first, performance and schedule after that.
| 
| I don't believe that statement is correct as an absolute.
| 
| For instance, a product that never ships is *not* better than a
| product that ships with bugs.  It is significantly worse.

Sure, but what is the relevance here?

I'm not convinced that your taking things to extreme will help your
cause; it will just have the effect of provoking negative reations.

-- Gaby