Re: GCC 3.4 Release Status (2003-12-16)

[Phil Edwards <phil at jaj dot com>]

On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 09:07:40PM +0100, Marc Espie wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 11:06:49AM -0800, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> > espie@quatramaran.ens.fr (Marc Espie) writes:
> > > In article <200312161732.hBGHWGNG019615@doubledemon.codesourcery.com> you write:
> > >>Do we still need -fwritable-strings?  We have a 3.4 regression with
> > >>that option, and I would prefer just to remove the option, since we're
> > >>moving away from supporting traditional C anyhow.
> > >
> > > There is still some code out there that requires -fwritable-strings.
> > >
> > > One specific program is rogue.
> > 
> > Could you live with Richard Earnshaw's suggestion that it be
> > deprecated in 3.4, removed in 3.5, and the bug Mark is talking about
> > doesn't get fixed?
> 
> Do you have time to fix rogue's code ?

Rogue can keep using 3.3 until its maintainers fix it.  Just like any other
package that uses bad extensions; 3.3 won't disappear.  GCC maintainers
have never been on the hook to fix up all the code out there which will
no longer work due to GCC bugfixes.

-- 
Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it.
    - Brian W. Kernighan