On 23 January 2014 21:58, Eric S. Raymond <e...@thyrsus.com> wrote: > Steven Bosscher <stevenb....@gmail.com>: >> 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. >> >> Ciao! >> Steven > > 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 message. 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, thanks. > 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. > It would hurt the FSF's > prestige pretty badly, though. It's not really my job to care about that, > 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.
