"flame" == "stoopidly pedantic"... NOT a discussion I want to get into again.
It *is* 5 years after it was written, by folks no longer here, (actually 10 years) and it WORKED FLAWLESSLY when written. Code + compiler -> successful product.
The compiler changed, it's current behavior is broken from my point of view! This compiler broken-ness drives a decision to NOT upgrade to the current (dysfunctional) compiler nor the OS it rode in on.
Brian Brunner brian.t.brunner@gai-tronics.com (610)796-5838
alex@milivojevic.org 10/24/05 12:08PM >>>
Quoting "Brian T. Brunner" brian.t.brunner@gai-tronics.com:
Not necessarily... gcc 2.9x LOVES my code, and the program built under it runs like a champ.
<flame mode="on"> "Try this and see if compiler or interpretter complains" approach is discutably OK for one-time use Perl scripts. It's a very bad approach for C code that should be used (and, oh my God recompiled) 5 years after it was written. </flame>
If your code conforms to ANSI, file a bug with gcc folks. If it doesn't conform with ANSI, it's you who are at fault. Don't blame the compiler for your mistakes of the past.
---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
_______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
******************************************************************* This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager.
This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses.
www.hubbell.com - Hubbell Incorporated
"Brian T. Brunner" brian.t.brunner@gai-tronics.com wrote:
The compiler changed, it's current behavior is broken from my point of view!
Have you ever used Microsoft Visual Studio? Cygnus (now Red Hat) has 18 years of experience that is a crapload better.
This compiler broken-ness drives a decision to NOT upgrade to the current (dysfunctional) compiler nor the OS it rode in on.
Again, blame the GCC 2 developers.
Sigh, there is a major history lesson that I could interject.
Read up on Richard Stallman (founder of GNU, the FSF and original GCC developer), Michael Tiemann (a very early GCC contributor, co-founder of Cy-GNU-s, and currently Red HAT CTO), the "technical specifics" of the GCC releases from 2.7 to 2.8 (and why some distros avoided it), the adoption of EGCS over GCC 2.8, the FSF nod to Cygnus on GCC 3, the GCC 2.91.66 (EGCS 1.1.2) release, the first 2.95 release, and subsequent 2.95.1, 2.95.2, 2.95.3 and, almost counter-productive, 2.95.4 release.
And lastly, if you want to see a lot of flamewars -- some of them based on incorrect information / mob opinion (one minor GCC contributor was totally oblivious to some things) -- the GCC 2.96 tag, Red Hat's release of it, and the re-tagging of 2.97 (which became 3.0).
Brings up memories from the even earlier GLibC 1, LibC 4, LibC 5 and the return to GLibC 2. There was a lot of incorrect information / mob opinion back then too. Yet we now have a solid LibC with threading, and a very inter-release ABI compatible C/C++ compiler today. ;->
-
Brian T. Brunner -
Bryan J. Smith