------- Comment #58 from rogerio at rilhas dot com 2010-08-14 16:02 ------- Why?? Why do you keep calling me back?? I was just going out and I heard the new e-mail sound! Now I'm going to be late!!
(In reply to comment #57) > Good way to make a convincing argument. You've tried to turn this into a > "your > mom" argument in three replies now, but noone seems to be rising to the bait. Not an argument. I said I was sorry to think it was you or one of your friends (is Chris your friend?). Anyway, I understand why you got confused and missed my apology, I inserted the mom joke. My bad, it was not funny at all, and you thought it was an argument. My bad. > Are you confusing me with Michael? I've not said anything about LDT. Yes I am. I'm sorry for that, I really am. I got mixed up. We were discussing the post and I didn't check the sender. There are just too many of you guys. I'm sorry, this comment wasn't meant for you (I must be getting tired). > What am I supposed to admit? That GCC compiles valid C++ code? You don't have to admit anything really. But in your comment #34 to bug #45249 you missed the point entirely and just spewed out standards. You missed the point really, as I was saying "GCC can't", and it really can't. Spewing out standards just to explain "GCC can't because <insert standards here>" was not really useful for that discussion. Does not make an idiot out of you though. Then you claimed <What a charming idea, that a compiler could become perfect by doing "what I said it should">. And that is very close to making an idiot out of you, because you deflected without getting the background for the conversation straight. I had to show you (again) that <you failed to see that "what I say" is what "C99+cdecl" say>. These all don't make an idiot out of you yet. Adding them all together was borderline-idiot, but still safe. Then, for this bug, your comment #45 missed the point. You didn't understand why I posted it on Wikipedia, although it is well explained there. But ok, I'll grant you that that also does not make an idiot out of you. ... then, from comment #53 on we really looked to me like Michael, so I lost it. Here I go, back to being more of an idiot, and there you go not an idiot yet. > That I've wasted time replying to you? That's true, but it's my weekend and > I'm waiting for a GCC testsuite run to finish so I have time. > You keep accusing GCC of not compiling useful C++ code, but haven't shown a > valid example yet. Yes I have. It is there on Wikipedia. The code compiled is not valid (in a functional sense) because the programmer cannot trust the pointer difference. Maybe at this point you get confused because you didn't type "valid [according to standards] example", but you didn't type it. So valid is open for discussion. And I say that is valid if it returns 0x4000-0x3000=0x1000. So there you go, now you're an idiot like Michael (well, still less, your error rate is much lower and of much less significance). You are an idiot because you don't know what "valid" is to everyone, you just think you do because you know of some standard that says what is "valid" in a given context. I do assembly inside my C code with MSC, is that not "valid" because it is not defined in any C standard? Nope. It is "valid", no matter how much you kick and scream. With the same train of thought I could talk about initializing classes as parameters to functions as in comment #25 of bug #45249 (as another example I posted and that you didn't see), because, again, you didn't explain what the "valid" word in your text was supposed to mean. I know you mean standards, but there is more to it. But this one does not make an idiot out of you because "valid" is much harder to define here. So I'm am not in a position to spot the level of idiocy in your comment (I'll just assume it is none). So I say "valid" (outside in the real world) and you say "invalid" (based on C standards), but none of us are idiots for it. > I am happy to learn but I don't see anything worth learning > from you, your opinions or your "debating" style. Even your trolling skills > are > poor, and you started so well. That's my point. You keep proving my point. You don't feel the need to learn anything from me because you are all cosy inside your standards box and look down on the other kids playing outside in the real world. You wear all your silk-based standards shirts and mock the dumb kids in the playground that use silk+cotton immitations. You call them idiots even after they've shown you that when you are outside silk doesn't cover all the needs. You don't even realize that I'm right that GCC thus alienates memory mapped device programmers, thus making it inferior to many others. You're stuck in idiot-land. I still don't know what a troll is. English is not my native language. Checking the web it seems like a troll is someone whose primary purpose when posting comments is to provoke disruption. I don't feel like that, I posted what I thought to be actual bugs in GCC. And I backed down my claims when I finally understood that GCC does go anywhere where standards don't tell it to go. I backed down because you've shown me it is not a bug. I'll grant I've put up a fight, but for me it was a fair fight. The Wikipedia post shows that, it is me admiting that I got GCC all wrong from the start. At this point I'm just arguing like you are, I don't think I'm any more of a troll than you. As for my skills as a troll being crap: that seems only natural, I don't have any intent to disrupt anything. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45265
