From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Wed,  7 Jun 2006 13:32:11 -0700
From: Roman Shaposhnick <rvs@sun.com>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] gcc on plan9
Message-ID: <20060607203210.GF29458@submarine>
References: <0528e98fed971b14c6bc7fd39ab1de44@coraid.com>
	<448733C4.5030802@lanl.gov>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <448733C4.5030802@lanl.gov>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 5c897778-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 02:15:00PM -0600, Ronald G Minnich wrote:
> Brantley Coile wrote:
> >Just make loading gcc and the library and anything else
> >that from gthe gworld gof gnu optional.  So I can rush out
> >and not load it.  Like the way the older gcc is now.
> >
> 
> yep, You don't like it, don't use it. Simple.
> 
> But I'm sick of the purity arguments.

  These are not purity arguments. What you're after *can* be
  implemented cleanly. There are two things I worry about however:
     
     1. Implementors having enough time to not make shortcuts
        which will render system inferior.
     
     2. Knowing when to start bugging users to fix the code
        instead of implementing yet another workaround in the system.
  
  Your tone of voice makes me think that you don't have time
  for the former and you've exhausted your patience for the
  later.

Thanks,
Roman.

P.S. As a compiler engineer working for a commercial compiler
vendor I have to face #2 all the time. And let me tell you 
it ain't a simple thing. However, serious developers usually 
understand that fixing the code (instead of asking a vendor to 
shut the compiler up) is much better long term strategy.
Unfortunately they are usually not the ones to escalate
these sort of "bugs". :-(