[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: AIX with Visual Age C compiler fails to compile 2.1 and later
From: |
Akim Demaille |
Subject: |
Re: AIX with Visual Age C compiler fails to compile 2.1 and later |
Date: |
Fri, 14 Oct 2005 08:13:53 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.110004 (No Gnus v0.4) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) |
>>> "Paul" == Paul Eggert <address@hidden> writes:
> Akim Demaille <address@hidden> writes:
>> I don't believe we ought to fight against bugs in C++ compilers.
>> The code we produce is compliant with a (pretty-)well defined standard.
> Yes, we needn't port to ancient C++ circa 1985,
That's not C++, that's an ancient dialect. (ISO) C++ is born in 95.
> but on the other hand we need to be cognizant of the wide variety
> of C++ compilers in practical use today, not all of which strictly
> conform to the latest standard.
10 years old!?! Then I'd like to know how old was that compiler.
> Suppose, for example, the Bison-generated parser triggered a bug in
> the C++ compiler in GCC 3.4 and earlier. If that happened, I'd say we
> should alter Bison (assuming it's relatively easy) rather than insist
> that everybody upgrade to GCC 4.0 before they or their code-suppliers
> can use Bison. Older GCC compilers are still quite widely used; GCC
> 2.95.4 and GCC 3.3.5 are the two standard GCC installations on Debian
> stable, for example.
I definitely agree! But I cannot imagine that, given the state of the
regression tests as of today, given the extreme aggressiveness that
some C++ tests can have wrt the compiler, that some day, code as
simple as this one, can make a compiler fail.