Re: [gentoo-amd64] First Impressions

[Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.]

On Thursday 28 September 2006 14:16, Barry.SCHWARTZ@×××××××××××××.org wrote 
about 'Re: [gentoo-amd64] First Impressions':
> "Boyd Stephen Smith Jr." <bss03@××××××××××.net> skribis:
> > It's wrong-headed to deride or discourage users for using the features
> > of their compiler when those functions are not erroneous.  Instead,
> > you should be leaning on the developers to fix the erroneous code.
>
> This looks like a false dichotomy to me.

But, it's not.  A piece of code it either conforms to a C/C++ standard the 
compiler implements or not.  This may be hard to determine but, it is a 
statement that is either true or false, absolutely.

If the code does not conform to the standard, the output of the compiler is 
undefined.  In particular, it is acceptable for the compiler produce 
errors or produce a binary that crashes.  The fault is with the code.

If the code does conform to the standard, the behavior of the output of the 
compiler is specified.  In particular, subject to resource limitations and 
hardware failure, the compile job must succeed and produce a binary that, 
again subject to resources and hardware, does not crash and performs the 
operations described in the source code.  The fault is with the compiler.

-- 
"If there's one thing we've established over the years,
it's that the vast majority of our users don't have the slightest
clue what's best for them in terms of package stability."
-- Gentoo Developer Ciaran McCreesh