Mail Archives: pgcc/1998/03/18/23:36:50
On Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 03:14:57PM +0100, Jan Gyselinck wrote:
> >
> > I don't care for broken programs. If programs don't compile anymore, it's by
> > 99.999% a bug in these programs. Better fix the programs rather than
> > kludging your compiler.
> Or not-documented behavior, maybe? Programs are there to help the user,
> isn't it? :p
well, linus says it isn't documented ;) actually, it is ambiguos. But that
one problem (ioperm) is neither a documentation problem nor a compiler bug,
and it was fixed long ago in 2.1.x
And, actually, while linus point is correct, linux' behaviour is nowhere
documented (at least there is no documentation for "the linux" that would be
correct).
Anyway, "linux" isn't "most programs", as the original writer said, and
"most programs" that break are either buggy, or C++ programs that are not
written in c++. but not _all_ people like to be specific in bug reports.
> > No. 2.7.2.3 is old, buggy, and supports only C ;) Fix your programs.
> This sounds like we're ruled by the tiranny of GCC/EGCS :p
Hmm... no, but unless people begin to seriously help me with pgcc, there is
not much chance of anything more than a almost-regular snapshot. There might
be very old patch to 2.7.2 somewhere on goof.com (/pub/pcg/source/old
maybe?), but nobody will have fun with it.
> Jan Gyselinck
> PGCC user and proud of it :)
Thanks!
-----==- |
----==-- _ |
---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ Marc Lehmann +--
--==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / pcg AT goof DOT com |e|
-=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ --+
The choice of a GNU generation |
|
- Raw text -