On 09/11/15 17:02, Richard Earnshaw wrote: > On 09/11/15 15:56, David Brown wrote: >> (I'm merely a "customer" of gcc, not a developer - but the customer is >> always right :-) ) > > But you're not the only customer, and other customers may disagree with > your priorities. > Yes, I know that - and even if I /were/ the only customer, this is open source, and nearly zero cost (I say nearly zero, because a tiny little bit of the price my company pays to buy ARM microcontrollers ends up helping to pay for gcc development). That's why I added the smiley. However, in all seriousness, I believe it is important that "customers" like myself have a chance to express our hopes and fears on gcc development. And I know I am not alone in worrying about the issue of better optimisations making bugs harder to find or causing greater damage. Then it is up to the gcc developers to see what matters to different users, and find the right balance (or the right selection of options to allow the users to pick their own balance).
