This is the mail archive of the 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: Two suggestions for gcc C compiler to extend C language (by WD Smith)

>> But it failed to fully correct the error
>> because, at least with gcc's implementation of stdint.h, only 8,16,32,
>> and 64 are provided.

>These cover the needs of virtually everyone in virtually all cases.

--a bold claim, made with zero evidence presented.  But
since we know that even 40 years ago, PASCAL felt the need to provide
packed boolean arrays, we know that 8-64 failed to cover the needs of
"virtually everyone in virtually all cases."

Looks to me like you just make stuff up.  My claim is: if you build
it, they will come.
People will like the fact that gcc provides a little more than the
bare minimum it is allowed to provide.

Also, I'm somewhat amazed how it is argued to me that a 9-bit machine
the PDP-10 is
covered by C fine, but yet, C insists on having everything a multiple
of 8 bits with padding bits disallowed, and that too is fine, and both
these facts refute me.


I've tried to make my critics argue against themselves by giving
examples where their statements contradict decisions they already made
to put X into GCC, but those examples just appears to be ignored by
you all.  Obviously
you feel that you yourselves back when you made the decision to add X,
were being an idiot.  Which is strange, but makes it clear it
ultimately is not I who it criticizing you, it is you who are
criticizing you.

Warren D. Smith  <-- add your endorsement (by clicking
"endorse" as 1st step)

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