This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GCC 4.2.0 Status Report (2007-02-19)
- From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu>
- To: Andi Kleen <andi at firstfloor dot org>
- Cc: "Kaveh R. GHAZI" <ghazi at caip dot rutgers dot edu>, Joe Buck <Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot COM>, "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>, GCC <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: 20 Feb 2007 23:54:53 -0600
- Subject: Re: GCC 4.2.0 Status Report (2007-02-19)
- References: <45DA39B2.9010100@codesourcery.com.suse.lists.egcs> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0702200017140.32368@digraph.polyomino.org.uk.suse.lists.egcs> <20070220003338.GA26045@synopsys.com.suse.lists.egcs> <Pine.GSO.4.58.0702200942310.12867@caipclassic.rutgers.edu.suse.lists.egcs> <p733b50e933.fsf@bingen.suse.de>
Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> writes:
| "Kaveh R. GHAZI" <ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu> writes:
| >
| > And we don't want to arm our detractors with bad SPEC numbers. I can just
| > imagine the FUD spreading... we've got to fix it or backout.
|
| For me as a gcc user miscompilations are far worse than bad SPEC numbers.
| I never run SPEC, but if my programs are miscompiled I am in deep trouble.
| I expect many other people to feel similar. Broken programs are infinitely
| worse than slower programs.
I strongly agree.
-- Gaby