Re: Mistaken change in GCC (fwd)

[Phil Edwards <pedwards at disaster dot jaj dot com>]

I realize that I'm a small voice in this discussion, but I feel compelled
to point something out...


On Fri, Nov 24, 2000 at 11:06:35AM -0700, Richard Stallman wrote:
> 
> In many cases, what is useful for the users is to follow the standard.
> Users have written many programs in accord with ISO C, and if GCC does
> not compile them correctly, these users will be very disappointed with
> GCC.  When following the standard is what the users need, we do it.
> But we are not "obeying" the standard; we are satisfying users' needs
> which were shaped by the standard.
> 
> In many other cases, whether we follow the standard is not directly
> important for users.  For instance, the ISO C standard requires many
> nonstandard constructs to be rejected.  We have instead defined
> meanings for some of them as GNU C extensions.  This "violates" the
> standard, but it is good for the users, since they find the extensions
> useful.

These are the same arguments that were put forth when the strict-aliasing
problem was hashed out (or worked around, whichever).  And it's a valid
argument, up to a point.

In the case of strict aliasing, the change would affect a great many users
and a great many programs, including some highly important ones.

In this case, it looks like it would cause problems for Emacs... and
who else?  You talk about "it is good for the users" as if there are
thousands of "users" that would be affected by this change.

With respect, I submit that the affected audience is not nearly numerous
enough to simply demand that an oddball extension be reinstated (or
"not removed" in the first place, however you want to look at it).
At least not using the same argument as was used for the strict-aliasing
discussion... which never seemed to produce a resolution for 3.0.

I'll shut up now.  :-)


Phil

-- 
pedwards at disaster dot jaj dot com  |  pme at sources dot redhat dot com
devphil at several other less interesting addresses in various dot domains
The gods do not protect fools.  Fools are protected by more capable fools.