On 23 January 2014 21:58, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> Steven Bosscher :
>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 10:27 PM, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
>> > I have not run direct checks on the quality of the optimized code, but
>> > reports from others that it is improved seem plausible in light of
>> > the fact that GCC's optimization technology is two decades older in
>> > origin.
>> Yay, another "fact".
>> You must have missed the almost complete rewrite of GCC's optimization
>> framework that was merged in 2004 and that's been continuously
>> improved since than: http://gcc.gnu.org/projects/tree-ssa/
>> Really. Do your homework.
> And another bullet whizzes by my head.
> Really, attempts to shoot the messenger *won't help*.
Then stop trying to "help" us, please.
> By ignoring the
> areas where clang *does* have a clear advantage, *right now*, you are
> displaying the exact head-in-the-sand attitude that is most likely to
> concede the high ground to clang.
It's not about having our head-in-the-sand and not wanting to hear the
You seem to think you're doing us a favour by telling us something we
need to hear.
We've heard it. It's not a new message. You can stop telling us now,
> That outcome wouldn't be a problem for me.
In that case you can stop trying to pass on the message now. We've heard
> It would hurt the FSF's
> prestige pretty badly, though. It's not really my job to care about
> but I thought someone here would. Perhaps I was wrong.
I know you think you're trying to help, but you're just yet another
person standing outside the tent pissing in, thinking you're helping
us win a war with Clang. But there is no war.
There's room for two high-quality open source compilers. They will
distinguish themselves in different ways, one of which is licensing.
Now please, stop trying to help.