> > Are you for real?
> [T.J. ] Just to clear things up. > If so: > > 1) Drepper maintained glibc, not gcc. These are two separate projects. True. I always treat GCC and glibc as somewhat synonymous since they go hand in hand. You can't have one without the other for all intents as far as Linux is concerned. > 2) Clang is a C and C++ frontend for LLVM. It does not contain a C library. Good point. It is however far superior to GCC in many regards. > > 3) I don't think this is a great place for unsubstantiated attacks on Ulrich > Drepper or on Ulrich Drepper's leadership of glibc. Attacking Drepper or his reputation was never my intention, so clearly this is only a misunderstanding on your part. I know my comments about him ignoring bug reports are correct, I've read the reports myself. That is 100% accurate. Although obviously when I wrote the comment I should have said glibc instead of GCC. I used both in the previous sentences and did not specifically separate them when I mentioned Drepper. Like everyone else, I am only human and occasionally make errors. Thank you for the correction. Mea Culpa. > 4) I also don't think this is a great place for unsubstantiated attacks on a > compiler suite. Unsubstantiated? I must humbly disagree. GCC has a long history of open bugs that do not get corrected for years. This one took 10 years - 10 YEARS - for to be corrected: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18501. I'd hardly call that criticism unsubstantiated. Saying that the GCC is a "mess" is perhaps subjective, but it is hardly unfair. It is a complex piece of software that like X11, to needs its development be shaken up every now and again. GCC has been completely replaced by a fork once already. EGCS replaced GCC and simply took the old name GCC name. T.J.
_______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
