------- Comment #53 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-14 13:55 -------
(In reply to comment #52)
> (In reply to comment #51)
> > > There you go, you are now famous.
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Compiler_Collection#Criticism
>
>
> Why did you remove the post? Do you think something there is not true? You
> said
> it, why is it not true? Are you recanting? Wikipedia is the place to post true
> statements, it if is the truth then it should be there. Don't tell me now that
> you are ashamed of what you said, are you?
Look at the page history, it was removed by someone else, probably because your
comment is badly written and not suitable for the Wikipedia page.
As with most of your comments, they are unfounded and easily refuted by
checking facts, but you're so sure you know them that you don't need to check.
As you've said before, learn to read.
> Please: you and your friends keep of from removing a perfectly valid criticism
> that I backed up with your statements. You think you can just keep on
> removing,
> but I'll just keep on putting it back. Until I get bored and take it up to
> Wilkipedia. Why didn't you remove the other guy's criticism about GCC being
> buggy and producing crappy code? Is his criticism better than mine? Is it
> better substantiated than mine?
Wikipedia editors are our friends now? Are you paranoid?
> I don't see where you are getting at. I don't want you to be the only one who
> knows the truth, I want everyone to know about it. Duhh!! Why else would I
> post
> it on Wikipedia?? I don't want GCC to keep any secret pitfalls from anyone, is
> that alright with you?
Noone wants it to be a secret, everyone in the GCC project would prefer if no
users shared your incorrect beliefs.
> It claims is cdecl conformant, but even without optimizations it doesn't place
> parameters on the stack as cdecl states. My bad, GCC does not guarantee cdecl
> anywhere, you are right. So I'll just shut up with that.
Check your favourite reference - the Wikipedia entry on cdecl says GCC is the
de facto standard for caling conventions on Linux - so by definition what GCC
does is correct. It must be true, Wikipedia says so.
> Was Microsoft wrong? No, us in the real world love it. In fact, this code:
>
> class Color;
> class Vector;
>
> virtual func(Color c=Color(WHITE), Vector v=Vector(VECTOR_Z));
>
> Has no workaround for in GCC. Why? Because GCC can't initialize parameters
> that
> are classes. MSC can. So this code (which I needed to do, no real practical
> alternative), cannot be compiled in GCC. Why? Because GCC doesn't go beyond
> standards. Period.
What are you talking about? You were originally talking about initializing
non-const references with temporaries. The code above would work fine, if
you'd defined Color and Vector.
class Color { public: Color(int); };
class Vector { public: Vector(int); };
const int WHITE = 0;
const int VECTOR_Z = 0;
class Idiot {
virtual void func(Color c = Color(WHITE), Vector v = Vector(VECTOR_Z));
};
GCC compiles that fine, try it.
GCC compiles that because it's valid C++.
What is your point?
Keep this up, future employers will love to see you making an idiot of yourself
so publicly.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45265
