This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: C Code mutilation by using gcc-3.3.x
- From: Phil Edwards <phil at jaj dot com>
- To: "Robert M. Stockmann" <stock at stokkie dot net>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, Linus Torvalds <torvalds at osdl dot org>, Dennis Ritchie <dmr at bell-labs dot com>, "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso at mit dot edu>, "H.J. Lu" <hjl at gnu dot ai dot mit dot edu>, "Eric S. Raymond" <esr at thyrsus dot com>, Alan Cox <alan at lxorguk dot ukuu dot org dot uk>
- Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 15:36:22 -0500
- Subject: Re: C Code mutilation by using gcc-3.3.x
- References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0402042042100.20864-100000@hubble.stokkie.net>
- Reply-to: i dot dont dot freaking at care dot com
On Wed, Feb 04, 2004 at 09:01:31PM +0100, Robert M. Stockmann wrote:
[snip code using C99 features and CRLF line endings]
> When trying to compile this driver source with gcc-2.95.3 instead
> of gcc-3.3.1 , i get the following results :
>
[snip error messages from pre-C99 compiler and non-CRLF-handling preprocessor]
> Whats going on here?
You don't have a time machine or a clue, apparently.
> Not only does the compilation fail with gcc-2.95.3, but when reading
> fasttrak.h, the variable size is _not_ given but also the variable
> type is _omitted_. How strange is it that gcc-3.3.1 is perfectly happy
> with this header file.
Programmers fail to port from new compilers to old compilers, therefore
3.3.1 is mutilating code and famous people must be spammed? Wow.
> How in earth could the Free Software Foundation and the GCC Team allowed this
> to happen?
What, making progress? We try to allow that as much as we can.
--
I would therefore like to posit that computing's central challenge, viz. "How
not to make a mess of it," has /not/ been met.
- Edsger Dijkstra, 1930-2002