This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Of Bounties and Mercenaries
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>
- To: Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot dot org>
- Cc: Robert Dewar <dewar at gnat dot com>, Andrew Pinski <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu>,stl at caltech dot edu, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 10:15:40 -0400
- Subject: Re: Of Bounties and Mercenaries
- References: <40727602.2080502@gnat.com> <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404060906420.1609-100000@nondot.org>
On Tue, Apr 06, 2004 at 09:07:48AM -0500, Chris Lattner wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Apr 2004, Robert Dewar wrote:
>
> > Chris Lattner wrote:
> > > Andrew Pinski wrote:
> > >
> > >>The other problem with this is that "Modern" "Standard" C++ has the
> > >>following problems:
> > >>1. Makes a mess out of simplifying code from the compiling when the
> > >>compiler is being miscompiled itself.
> > >
> > >
> > > Huh?
> >
> > If you really don't understand the above point 1, that's surprising.
> > Have you ever actually worked through problems in a self-compiling
> > bootstrapped compiler? Or are you just arguing language merits?
>
> No, I just can't parse the english statement. Can Andrew or someone else
> restate?
Sure: I believe what Andrew is saying is that when you have a failure
in the stage2 compiler, i.e. a miscompiled compiler, it becomes
substantially harder to diagnose and minimise.
Whether that's true or not I don't know. It's plausible.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer