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: <87adtpv3lg.fsf@becket.becket.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
References: <20020301172109.39A3B19A6B@mail.cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] GUI toolkit for Plan 9
Date: Mon,  4 Mar 2002 10:07:31 +0000
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 5e5e1c36-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

anothy@cosym.net writes:

> i do not dispute that the gcc maintainers spend alot of effort
> trying to find and eliminate bugs. i simply don't think they spend
> enough (because they don't _have_ enough) given the size and
> complexity of their code.

Really?  So far I know of one optimization bug in the 8c compiler and
none in GCC.  Do you have some you know about but aren't reporting?

> i think you're under the impression that people here are somehow
> making "an argument for why GCC is somehow *bad* for having
> such optimizations" (again, you). rather, what i think people are
> arguing is that GCC is bad for including optimizations beyond the
> maintainer's ability to keep bugs to near-zero.

If people had some actual claims about how many bugs they think there
are, that would be useful.

Thomas