Andrew Pinski wrote:
Oh, one more thing. This seems like the normal problem of not
reading the docs
if something does not work the way you want it to work.
So?
The only thing we can do is point it out that it is documented
behavior and
then move on to the next issue. Also why are we discussing this when
there are more important bugs to fix currently as this behavior has
been documented
for a long time, at least 4 years.
Your important and my important are two different things.
But this is the FSF GCC mailing list so the important here should
be regressions. Hint hint. If people don't want FSF releases
any more say so please, otherwise we get into this fights about
what is really important.
I think you've managed to get everything backwards. We have potential
customers (dunno if I'm allowed to name them, so I won't) who can't
use GCC because of its current behavior. We can fix Apple GCC in a
minute to make them happy, but of course then we'll have to tell them
"don't use FSF GCC, you'll lose". So we're offering to make FSF GCC
work for these users also, and asking for input on the idea. As
always, it's the community's choice as to whether this is a desirable
feature for FSF GCC, and that's part of the discussion, but at least
don't p*ss on us for making the offer in the first place!
Stan
