correctness and comprehensiveness of compilers [was: Re: C compiletime]

[Robert Myers]

Scott Robert Ladd wrote:

>
> Buying Intel's compilers has absolutely no impact, financial or 
> otherwise, on GCC; therefore, it is not a matter of "competition" so 
> much as focus. This is the GCC list, for discussion of GCC-related 
> issues -- and, at times, how other compilers "work" is germaine to 
> GCC. Discussion of such issues, in moderation, has value.
>
> GCC is often frustrated by false ideas about the quality of "free" 
> software and the GNU compilers; I wrote my compiler comparison with 
> the explicit purpose of showing the GCC is, indeed, a professional 
> tool. If we expect the courtesy of fair representation for GCC, 
> perhaps we should extend it to others on a reasonable scale. We're 
> engaged in a balancing act, between focus and fairness. People's 
> mileage will, I'm sure, vary.

I'm *very* confused.  As far as gnu/linux is concerned, gcc has no 
competitors.  I can't imagine anyone who was not deliberately setting 
out to prove something silly trying to build an entire gnu/linux 
installation with any other compiler.  If gcc changes the way it does 
business, gnu/linux software, both commercial and non-commercial, must 
change along with it.

If discussion of other compilers that might be used for gnu/linux 
applications, their capabilities, shortcomings, or applicability or 
non-applicability to problems of interest as compared to gcc were to be 
banned from the list, it would be just as silly (and self-destructive) 
as AMD deciding that discussion of Intel products was forbidden for 
in-house communications.

I'm hoping that I merely misunderstood and that someone will clarify for me.

RM