Re: [9fans] caveat... optimizer? the `zero and forget' thread on HN

[arnold@skeeve.com]

> > > gcc etc. are used to deliver a lot of code that is used in
> > > real word.  And without a standard there would've been lot
> > > less interoperability and far more bugs.

This remains true.  It is possible and not that difficult to write
code that can be successfully and correctly compiled by multiple compilers
(like, oh, i dunno, maybe, GNU awk :-).

> > Most interoperability delivered by gcc comes from the fact that gcc is
> > widespread, not that the standard is effective. If it was we wouldn't need
> > to port gcc to everything.
>
> even clang got forced into bug-for-bug compatability mode.

Also the Intel compiler, ICC.

Like many things, standards seem to obey a bell curve. The problem is that
we're on the descending side on so many of them... (Dare I say it? "POSIX".
Freel free to run screaming in horror. :-)

Having lived through the Unix wars of the late 80s and early 90s, I think
that overall standards are a good thing.  It just seems that more recently
the comittees keep adding stuff in order to justify their continued existence,
instead of solving real problems.

Arnold