On Wed, 10 Oct 2001 12:02:39 -0400 "William W. Austin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So to make a breif resume of all this writing back and forth and the excellent observation i have read since i made the original post on the list would you be tempted to say that if the code written by the programmer would be more " standard",im no programmer , that the application ( MPlayer ) could have been written so it compile without a problem on any gcc ? What i mean is this. If one uses good programming practices , should code compile on all recent gcc's ? If MPlayer would have been written right, that actually it would compile and there would be no need for all these warnings and flames ? : ) Richard David Scriven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I stand corrected - the word I should have used was > > 'suggested' as in "you will find a recent update > > at this site". Whatever the case, gcc 2.96-85 DOES > > have bugs (I have a large amount of code that works > > perfectly on other compilers to attest to this) Does > > Red Hat 'recommend' the Rawhide 2.96-99 rpm > > as a solution? > > Is it safe to assume that you have filed bug reports on bugzilla on each of the bugs >which you mention that you have found? > > FWIW, as others have mentioned, MPlayer 0.50 compiled (and runs) just fine for me >using gcc-2.96-85 -- after removing the config nonsense of course... > > One rather important point here is that successful compilation (and even execution) >using this or that compiler does __NOT__ indicate that the code is correct. I have >written significant amounts of code -- both professionally and personally -- which >was not strictly correct, yet which compiled and executed the way I wanted it to >(i.e., "correctly" in the context in which I was using it). My code simply took >advantage of non-standard features of the compiler(s) I was using at the time. > > When I first tried 2.96-(earlier release) I was really irritated because a >medium-sized project which I had just finished at the office would not compile using >it. I tried 3 other compilers on 3 OS's and they all compiled it without a whimper >(OK, warnings, but no errors). Then I smugly went back and more thoroughly examined >what I had done. It was embarrassing but I had relied on some >less-than-ansi-conformant tricks which happened to compile on those other compilers >(one was an older gcc). That did not, however, make my code either ANSI-conformant >or "correct" (whatever "correct" means)... > > Clearly gcc-2.96 is more strict about the standard (and it doesn't appear that the >interpretation of the standard is really the subject here). And I do not think it >reasonable to call insisting on conformance to the standard a bug, even though it >makes more work for me. I would probably like to see an option added which enables >compatability with the previous release(s?) of gcc, but (having written other >compilers) I suspect that the addition of such an option would be a GoodThing (tm) >since it could easily open up so many other potential areas for bugs. > > Yes, I also found one bug in the 2.96 releases a while back -- and I suspect that it >actually was a bug. But I was never able to isolate the it, and after a few days >trying I just re-coded the section which appeared to trigger it, and the run-time bug >disappeared. > > Bill Austin > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > _______________________________________________ > Seawolf-list mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/seawolf-list _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Seawolf-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/seawolf-list
