gabriel rosenkoetter on Tue, 17 Apr 2001 12:00:18 -0400

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [PLUG] gcc

On Tue, Apr 17, 2001 at 10:41:55AM -0400, Walt Mankowski wrote:
> Redhat's official list of new features[1] says their version of gcc is 
> "gcc 2.96-RH".  I've heard it's been "heavily patched" but don't know
> the details.

One who has ever worked with any kind of compiler (and especially
one that compiles more than one language... like, say, one that
compiles C, C++, Objective C, Fortran 77, Chill, and Java hell,
let's even say one that compiles all those languages to about thirty
differnt processor architectures) would question the sanity of
producing (and maintaining) a release of an operating system,
deciding it should have a compiler, seeing that someone else is
providing a compiler, including that other group's compiler... and
then including a version which they do not support, implying that
one would have to provide support for that compiler oneself, in
addition to all the various operating system things one is already
providing support for.

Have you ever played with writing a compiler, much less even *looked*
at the gcc code? No, really, you should some time. (For what it's
worth, I have both written a rudimentary C compiler, and am in
the process of making gcc do the right thing for PowerPC where it
currently does the wrong thing.)

If all of the FSF developers working on gcc don't think it's ready
for 3.0 release yet, what are the chances that a by-definition
smaller (since they're not working from community input) group at
RedHat have put together a working release?

If they had, why haven't they submitted it to the FSF, consequently
yielding a 3.0 release of gcc?

Could this have something to do with the fact that, while RedHat can
get away without caring about anything besides i386, the FSF has the
stated goal for 3.0 that it work the right way on all the supported

Sorry, it's been a rough few weeks, or I wouldn't be spouting like
this, but I really fail to see why anyone would continue to use,
much less support, RedHat after they've proven their penchant for
releasing broken software. (Of course, the same could be said about
Microsoft, but that's hardly a justification.)

       ~ g r @

Philadelphia Linux Users Group       -
General Discussion  -