🚀 go-pugleaf

    Arthur Jerijian writes:

>	First of all, are you sure that it's GCC's fault?  You could
>have some serious memory corruption if GCC segfaults at random places
>all the time.  Please read the Linux FAQ; it's there for you to RTFM.
>In particular, look at the Sig11 FAQ which the Linux FAQ mentions
>(I forgot where it is).


    Yes.  When gcc aborts a compile with "Internal compiler error"
I'm sure that it is gcc's fault.  And there is no mention of signal 11
in the Linux FAQ.

>	Excuse me?  Are you trying to bash GCC just because of a single
>bad experience?  On my system, I had no problems with GCC 2.7.0 and
>libc 5.0.9 up to now.  Please make sure your setup and/or your hardware
>isn't broken.  In particluar, Slackware 3.0 is known to have various
>configuration/package version bugs; no software is immune to problems.
>But DON'T put down the FSF for their volunteer efforts, unless you would
>like to help them fix whatever problem you might happen to have with GCC.

    If I may say so, your comments illustrate part of the problem.
Here you refer to some "known" configuration bugs, but you can't tell
me where these bugs are documented.  (I've never heard anyone else refer
to these "known" bugs.  Who are these bugs known to?)  Previously you
said there was a Signal 11 FAQ in the Linux FAQ, but that comment was
wrong too.  Arthur, you don't seem to know what you are talking about.

    As far as volunteer efforts are concerned, incompetent volunteers
can ruin a project.  If FSF can't assure the quality of its compiler
by relying on skilled help and rigorous testing procedures then they
should announce that they can no longer support gcc and allow other
freeware, shareware, or commercial vendors to enter the Linux market
so that we can have a reliable compiler.  (It makes no sense for
anyone else to get into the Linux C/C++ compiler market as long as FSF
remains.)

    A few days ago I asked you to try and compile the code that gcc
couldn't compile on my machine, but you have not even responded to that.
You are either very busy or are unwilling to take a look at the problem.
I doubt that it is the former since you have time to read this newsgroup
and defend the gcc implementors.  Why not contribute to the resolution
of this issue instead taking a stand before you have even investigated
the problem?

Dean Schulze