"flame" == "stoopidly pedantic"... NOT a discussion I want to get into again.
It *is* 5 years after it was written, by folks no longer here, (actually 10 years)
and it WORKED FLAWLESSLY when written.
Code + compiler -> successful product.
The compiler changed, it's current behavior is broken from my point of view!
This compiler broken-ness drives a decision to NOT upgrade to the
current (dysfunctional) compiler nor the OS it rode in on.
Brian Brunner
brian.t.brunner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(610)796-5838
>>> alex@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 10/24/05 12:08PM >>>
Quoting "Brian T. Brunner" <brian.t.brunner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> Not necessarily... gcc 2.9x LOVES my code, and the program built
> under it runs like a champ.
<flame mode="on">
"Try this and see if compiler or interpretter complains" approach is
discutably
OK for one-time use Perl scripts. It's a very bad approach for C code that
should be used (and, oh my God recompiled) 5 years after it was written.
</flame>
If your code conforms to ANSI, file a bug with gcc folks. If it
doesn't conform
with ANSI, it's you who are at fault. Don't blame the compiler for your
mistakes of the past.
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
*******************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the system manager.
This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept
for the presence of computer viruses.
www.hubbell.com - Hubbell Incorporated
