Subject: RE: Why is gcc 3.2 prerelease?
From: "Stephan Mueller" <[email-masked]>
To: "Andrew Markebo" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:52:50 -0800

Um, who is this M$ you refer to?  If it's a company named Microsoft,
there's no $ in the name.  We all know how much damage a simple mistake
can cause.  Just imagine if someone were trying to do it deliberately.

Seriously, the notion about a careless mistake is a good one.  I am
amused about the way the notion is applied though.  In cases where
careless mistakes are made in commercial products, folks (perhaps like
yourself, Andrew**) suggest that commercial vendors are being evil and
malicious.  Now, when there's a potential for careless mistakes in open
source software, folks (specifically yourself, Andrew) suggest that...
commercial vendors are being evil and malicious!  Saboteurs indeed.

Um, no, you can't blame Microsoft for flaws in open source code.
Mistakes occur in software.  They are nearly inevitable, especially in
large complex pieces of software, regardless of the 'religion'* of the
developers.  Folks who write significant software generally take pride
in their work and do their best to make their software as good as
possible, given available resources and requirements.  Period.  There is
no conspiracy.

Finding ways to eliminate such mistakes is of course, a good thing.  And
yes, in general, it is better to detect errors than not, and better to
detect them at compile time than at run time.  And in general, I think
you'll find that all compiler suites under active development, get
better in this regard as time passes.

stephan();

** and perhaps not by you, Andrew.  But the suggestions are frequently
made by some.

* by 'religion' I'm strictly referring to one's opinions regarding
whether software should be 'free' (as in free speech, not free beer) or
if it's actually OK to charge for it.  That sort of thing.

-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Adams [TEPG Sunbury] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 11:25 AM
To: Andrew Markebo
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: Why is gcc 3.2 prerelease?

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Andrew Markebo [mailto:[email-masked]]
>Sent: 05 March 2003 16:15
>To: Bruce Adams [TEPG Sunbury]
>Subject: Re: Why is gcc 3.2 prerelease?
>
>
>Hi!
>
>I suppose you have heard this, but I vote for that GCC 3 burfs
>on an error (runtime) that GCC 2.95 were to stupid to burf 
>on.. or similar.. 
>
I wouldn't mind if it "burfed" in an intelligable manner. Better still
if it did it at compile or link time. Sometimes I worry that saboteurs
from M$ have infiltrated GNU and FSF.  We all know how much damage a
simple mistake missed by a programmer and a careless reviewer can cause.
Just imagine if someone was trying to do it deliberately.  Shudder....

>I agree with you though that it might be a bit weird we are
>running on a prerelease gcc that is a little old.. sort of.. 
>but well, noone have maybe had the time to upgrade it.. 
>
>      /Andy

========================================================================
====
 Any opinions expressed in this e-mail are those of the individual and
not  necessarily those of Tyco Safety Products.

 Any prices for the supply of goods or services are only valid if
supported  by a formal written quotation.

 This e-mail and any files transmitted with it, including replies and
forwarded copies (which may contain alterations) subsequently
transmitted  from Tyco Saftey Products are confidential and solely for
the use  of the intended recipient.

 If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for
delivery to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received
this  e-mail in error and that any use is strictly prohibited.  In this
event,  please notify us via e-mail at [email-masked]' or
telephone on 
 0121 255 6499 and then delete the e-mail and any copies of it.
========================================================================
====

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/