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.

Reply via email to