From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
From: "Thomas Bushnell, BSG" <tb+usenet@becket.net>
Message-ID: <874rjhbx8l.fsf@becket.becket.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
References: <20020315115533.77C4319A8B@mail.cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] Is this a bug in 8c?
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 16:53:15 +0000
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 6805c220-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

forsyth@caldo.demon.co.uk writes:

> >>Wow, the snide self-superiority of the previous conversation is really
> >>coming home to roost.
> 
> i don't think anyone was snide, or even self-superior.
> we just don't think gcc is the alpha and omega of compilers,
> or even that the trade-offs make sense everywhere.

The argument was that GCC is bloated and bugridden and unreliable,
where 8c is fast, lean, and (as a consequence), bug free.

And it turns out that 8c has plenty of *intentional* bugs. 

The claim was that GCC trades optimization for correctness, when it
certainly makes no such intentional trade.

But 8c in fact *does* make such trades, either to save developer time,
or just a deliberate "yes, this is wrong, but the generated code is
faster!"

Thomas