This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: IRA for GCC 4.4


On 2008/4/28 Dave Korn <dave.korn@artimi.com> wrote:
> J.C. Pizarro wrote on :
>
>
>  > On 2008/4/28 Ben Elliston wrote:
>  >> On Sun, 2008-04-27 at 21:45 +0200, J.C. Pizarro wrote:
>  >>
>  >>  > Don't be stupid!
>  >>
>  >>  Could you be a bit more civil, please?  It's fairly unusual for people
>  >>  on this list to talk to each other in this way.
>  >>
>  >>  Thanks,
>  >>  Ben
>  >
>  > Excuse me, i'm not the unique and first person that says you stupid, GCC
>  > did it too.
>
>   Even if that were so, two wrongs do not make a right.

It's your personal comment.
For me, they do not make a right when they are 7 wrongs.

>
>  >  The "stupid" word can be a help, not only an offense.
>  >
>  > gcc/cp/decl.c: and in case doing stupid register allocation.
>  > gcc/c-aux-info.c: user may do something really stupid, like
>  > creating a brand new
>
>   The crucial difference you've overlooked is that all these comments are
>  describing some /thing/ as stupid, not some /person/.  When you want to offer
>  what you hope will be /constructive/ criticism, try to de-personalise the
>  issues; it makes for more productive social interactions.

What about the stupid user in
   gcc/alias.c: but stupid user tricks can produce them, so don't die  ?

But the stupid things are made by humans, never by things.

You can't de-personalise the stupid things made by humans,
 so it's better to say them stupid to persons who did stupid things
 better than to unfear things.

>
>     cheers,
>       DaveK
>  --
>  Can't think of a witty .sigline today....


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]