🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4h7ku3$cm4@news.ccit.arizona.edu>,
Dean Schulze <schulze@asgard.lpl.arizona.edu> wrote:
>    Arthur Jerijian writes:
>
>>	First of all, are you sure that it's GCC's fault?  You could
...
>>In particular, look at the Sig11 FAQ which the Linux FAQ mentions
>>(I forgot where it is).

/usr/doc/faq/faq/GCC-FAQ.gz for me.

>
>    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.

Why?  Why can't it be a hardware problem, you were using that at the
time also, right?

>
>>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.


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.

Well, I found the document after about 30 seconds of looking.  The
bugs are pretty much common knowledge to anyone who's read the
newsgroup recently, as this comes up several times a week.  Reading
for awhile (and checking the FAQ's) before posting is considered
proper ettiquete.  Bashing those who try to help ...

>
>    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.)

So go buy a "good one" (good luck), or throw some money at the FSF
(even better).  Or, rtfm and realize it's NOT gcc's fault (-and- throw
money).  Of course, you can always decline their excellent free
services and write your own.  

>
>    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?
>

Because it's in TFM he pointed you to?  He's obviously done a lot more
investigating than you have.  Unless you're a darn fast typist, you
could have figured out your problem quicker than it took to dump on
him and FSF.  As far as "not even responded" and "unwilling to take a
look", he's already done more than he should have had to.

Personally, if I receive a message that tells me my question is an
FAQ, I appreciate it.  It tells me I overlooked something, or didn't
look hard enough -- either way, I know the answer's out there.


--
________________________________________________________________
Larry Kingery			kingery@cs.uiowa.edu
Dept of Computer Science	http://www.cs.uiowa.edu/~kingery
University of Iowa,		
Iowa City, IA, USA		Dole '96
----------------------------------------------------------------