Re: What about a non-free compiler? (Re: new port: debian-win32. when ?)
On Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 09:29:07PM +0300, Eray Ozkural wrote in
response to Colin Watson:
> I guess you're referring to subtleties caused by the compiler
> implementation, slightly different binary file format handling,
> and the mysterious troubles that might be caused.
No, he's probably talking about how the different compilers will
deal with different code differently. If the binary I have is from
a compiler that does strict aliasing*, it may have subtle bugs that
I can't fix or even find with gcc.
* Or some other subtle optimiztion that breaks the codes' slight abuse
of the rules.
> > For instance, what if your expensive non-free, non-distributable
> > compiler had a bug? It's not uncommon: I have an outstanding bug against
> > gcc right now for compiling one of my unofficial packages wrongly. If
> > you leave your users in a position where they find it difficult to tell
> > whether their binary is crashing because of a bug in the source or a bug
> > in the compiler, or where they can't test for themselves if a patch
> > they've written and painstakingly tested under the freely distributed
> > development tools is going to break when you compile it, then ultimately
> > you're only decreasing the quality of the distribution.
> >
It seems you avoided this whole question. What could we do about bugs
in the binary caused by the compiler?
> I was asking this question because I'm having great difficulties
> with g++ as my main C++ compiler. I'm writing standard C++
> code for some tasks that require efficiency and [portability], but
> I'm getting very skeptical about the "GCC Steering Comittee" and
> that the gcc might be becoming the Visual C of Red Hat.
Why? gcc has one of the most open developement systems of any software
out there, and is currently lead by Mark Mitchell of CodeSourcery, LLC.
Or do you believe that Debian is run by Red Hat to divert people from
Red Hat's total conquest of Linux?
> I know of
> all the arguments about the rights and everything belonging to
> FSF and that it is pure free software, but what can I do if it doesn't
> satisfy my requirements?
Fork the packages. Pay someone to fix them for you (CodeSourcery will
be happy to do this.) Go work on another free C++ compiler (Tendra is
in Debian.)
> On the other hand, if g++ is becoming a conformant ISO Standard
> implementation,
It's working that way. The only major thing in 3.0 should be the
export feature, which isn't terribly useful for free software.
--
David Starner - dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org
The hell that is supposedly out there could be no worse than
the hell that is sometimes seen in here.
Reply to: