On 01/22/2013 05:51 PM, Alec Teal wrote: > I really just wanted a serious discussion, it failed. I should clarify: > I define bitching to be "pointlessly diffusing statements so nothing > gets done". Like the error thing "well actually that's a myth from some > deep dark place where they used a really old GCC and a new Clang", > silly, if GCC is better why is it not said "Clang has useless error > reports!"
OK, OK, let's all take a deep breath and make this a serious discussion, then. It's not too late. > So how could we (you, I know I'm not ready) remedy this? Start telling > people GCC doesn't do this legendary "folding" thing and keeps track of > tokens (I read somewhere, I think it was an old paper by Mozilla about > Treehydra and Dehydra (now dead) that GCC cannot map things back to > lines of source code, then somewhere else that Clang can track stuff > though macro-expansions, GCC turns "x-x" to "0" which causes a problem > for static analysis - this is a good optimization but it's being done > too early). Folding is done very early in GCC, in the front ends. It would be possible to nullify fold() so that it didn't do anything, but a few places in the compiler require it. > Have an option where GCC outputs stuff that's verbose and easier for an > Ide to parse, I understand a lot of stuff relies on the current way, why > not that? > Macros are good (if not over-used, there are some VILE ones out > there) but debugging macro-ed code is the bane of any programmers' > day. We know. The move to C++ will help that. > If you are going to bitch in reply at least include some links to things > worth reading that are ideally quite long and dirty, if you'd respond > seriously, it'd be much welcome. > > I was honestly hoping for a good "chat" about the pros and cons, what > could be done about things, you know interesting stuff, not " > > Stop swearing and criticising people for responses you don't like. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Andrew.
