help-gplusplus
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Operationally well-tried


From: Robert Heller
Subject: Re: Operationally well-tried
Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 01:50:58 +0200

At Thu, 03 May 2007 21:30:16 +0200 Ulrich Elsner 
<usenet030507.20.elsner@xoxy.net> wrote:

> 
> Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> writes:
> >
> > Except that the Linux kernel is all plain C, not C++ -- g++ is not used
> > to build the kernel.
> >
> > Lots of other software typically distributed with Linux is written in
> > C++ and have been compiled with g++, but the OP for some reason seems to
> > think these don't count.
> 
> The problem is (or I have been told it might be) that many of these
> are not compiled with _one_ version of g++. For me personally, the
> fact that I do not have to use exactly version x.y.z of a compiler
> but can use all version x.whatever is a good sign, because it implies
> that the compiler core is basically stable and the minor version 
> changes only affect new features or small bug-fixes. With this
> world-view I can think of many examples immediately. 
> 
> But question and comments suggest to me that our evaluator (?)
> considers a rarely changing compiler as more trustworthy.

What *exactly* do you mean by 'evaluator' -- are you refering to a
person or to a program (or procedure).

> So, Visual C++ 6 is good. 
> I think the reasoning behind this is: you know the 
> idiosyncrasies and you can work around them.

There should NOT be any 'idiosyncrasies': 'idiosyncrasies' == unfixed
bugs! In other words, the 'rarely changing compiler' is really a 'buggy'
compliler and/or a compiler that does not follow the current standard
language specification.

It sounds like your 'evaluator' is using some really *bad* evaluation
methods... 

>  
> So, if I can find some examples of software that 
> - uses the same version of g++
> - is widely deployed, so that its stability is proven by numbers
> - is preferably safety relevant (our evaluator comes from that
>   that corner)
> 
> I would try to use these as examples why g++ version x.y.z can
> be trusted and should be used. Otherwise I'll have to try some
> other approach.
> 
> 
> Ulrich
> 
>      
>                

-- 
Robert Heller             -- 978-544-6933
Deepwoods Software        -- Linux Installation and Administration
http://www.deepsoft.com/  -- Web Hosting, with CGI and Database
heller@deepsoft.com       -- Contract Programming: C/C++, Tcl/Tk
                                                             


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]