Submitted 05-May-01 by Alexander Skwar:
> Uhm, and the fix is to break standards compliance so that really broken
> stuff works? I don't think this is right, I rather think the right way to
> go would be to fix the really broken things. Also, I doubt that gcc 3.00,
> once it comes out, will work with broken sources which don't work with gcc
> 2.96. Ie. these broken sources would have to be fixed anyway - so, why not
> start right now?
You are, of course correct. I was simply pointing out that the
*perception* of the broken compiler was because people (incorrectly)
expected the broken behavior and their broken sources failed to compile
as a result. Yes, there have been some flaky bugs along the line, but
they have usually been resolved quickly, and it's a solid compiler if
you're working with solid code.
--
Anton Graham GPG ID: 0x18F78541
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> RSA key available upon request
"It is as natural to man to die as to be born; and to a little infant,
perhaps, the one is as painful as the other."
-- Francis Bacon, Of Death
