From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ciao.gmane.io (ciao.gmane.io [116.202.254.214]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E70D3858D38 for ; Sun, 28 May 2023 11:51:02 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 7E70D3858D38 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=hesbynett.no Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=m.gmane-mx.org Received: from list by ciao.gmane.io with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1q3EvL-0009dr-LS for gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Sun, 28 May 2023 13:50:59 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org From: David Brown Subject: Re: Will GCC eventually support correct code compilation? Date: Sun, 28 May 2023 13:50:50 +0200 Message-ID: References: <51071A92918346ABBC6B5703179F5174@H270> <896EB515110646CEBAA84E98E273E4B8@H270> <4BD5D8BA8E0F45098CC3E2B188A216E6@H270> <24C17D6B62D041D39D3962704D1B4B67@H270> <20230527131635.091a54ad5bd00035d974215a@killthe.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.7.1 Content-Language: en-GB In-Reply-To: <20230527131635.091a54ad5bd00035d974215a@killthe.net> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3030.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_MUA_MOZILLA,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,KAM_DMARC_STATUS,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On 27/05/2023 20:16, Dave Blanchard wrote: > On Fri, 26 May 2023 18:44:41 +0200 David Brown via Gcc > 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.