Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #108205
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: Linux and GCC |
| Date | 2017-04-17 17:37 +0200 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <od2nar$pdq$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (8 earlier) <oc65oe$cda$1@dont-email.me> <58ea3a03.3105375@news.xs4all.nl> <ocdh7l$6bt$1@dont-email.me> <ocdhhd$64o$2@dont-email.me> <58f0b188.6051750@news.xs4all.nl> |
On 14/04/17 13:39, Richard Bos wrote: > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: > >> On 09/04/17 16:45, Noob wrote: >>> On 09/04/2017 15:42, Richard Bos wrote: >>> >>>> David Brown wrote: >>>> >>>>> Yes, it is so widely supported that there are a range of compilers that >>>>> can be used to compile the Linux kernel. Oh, wait, that's wrong - gcc >>>>> is the /only/ compiler that can be used for the kernel, because it is >>>>> the /only/ compiler to support this particular variant of C. > >>>> I thought Linux and gcc had nothing to do with one another? >>>> Make your mind up. >>> >>> It's not clear what your point is. >> >> His point is that he doesn't like gcc, Linux, or (I think) any sort of >> free or open source software. So he likes to point out possible >> inconsistencies when people have said nice things about such software. > > Bullshit, and you know it. I have made it quite clear quite often before > that what I dislike is not OSS itself but the hypocrisy of its adherents > and the lack of criticism it, and in particularly gcc, gets in this > newsgroup where commercialisms are roundly slated and even mocked for > similare, and often the very same, faults. I am not a fan of hypocrisy either - few people are. If you were to dig through all the posts I have made (I am not suggestion you do so - it's not worth the effort), you'd see some posts I have made that are critical to gcc. But it just so happens that I think it is an excellent tool, and far and away the best compiler for /my/ needs. Clearly, I have a lot more good things to say about it than bad things - that is not hypocrisy, it is merely being fond of a good tool. And most of the criticisms against gcc in this newsgroup have been things that are, IMHO, of very little relevance. > > If Microsoft makes its API easy to use for MSVC, and harder for gcc, > that's Microsoft's fault. Of course it would be Microsoft's /fault/ - who wrote the API and the MSVC compiler? Whether it is a problem or not is another matter, and there could well be good technical reasons for the API being the way it is. And it is perfectly reasonable for MS to emphasis support for their own tools. But if I think it is technically a poor choice of API, I don't see it as unreasonable to say so. > If Linux makes its API easy to use for gcc and > harder for other compilers, that's because it's the best design. The Linux kernel is written using gcc extensions - and currently, that is the only compiler that supports everything the Linux kernel needs. But the API is made to work with any compiler and any programming language that can follow a pretty standard ABI calling convention. In the early days of the Linux kernel, there were no other compilers that could be considered for compiling it - so it made perfect sense to use gcc extensions if they helped the code. Now, there /are/ other candidates such as clang and icc, and it makes sense to minimise the dependencies on extensions that are not also supported on these compilers. But the key difference here is that no one expects to compile /Windows/ using gcc - they just want to compile user-mode code for Windows with gcc. There has never been any problem compiling user-mode code for Linux with other compilers. > If M$ > makes the compiler use the system DLLs, that's poor practice and > introduces dependencies. If gcc separates the compiler and the library > and refuses to acknowledge that they are the two halves of one > implementation, that's just how it works. You must be getting your ideas from some other gcc or Linux fan. I criticise the MS C library for being old (poor C99 support), though its C++ support is top class. This means that any C compiler on Windows that relies on the system DLL's and/or MSVC's DLL's for the C runtime library will necessarily be limited. As for the separation of library and compiler for gcc - I think it is usually a good thing. I am a big user of gcc - but a very small user of glibc (in my own code), and I am glad that I have a selection of libraries to use with gcc for different purposes. However, this separation - like many things about gcc - seems to confuse certain people in this group, and needs to be explained again and again. > I'm sorry that your ego is bruised by this, but that's _not_ how it > works. You cannot praise Linux and the OSS milieu for the same things > you criticise M$, Apple and other vendors for. That's nothing to do with > liking one or the other, that's plain hypocrisy. And you cannot tar every gcc and/or *nix user with the same brush. I am a happy user of gcc and Linux - and a less happy user of Windows (and mostly happy to avoid Apple OS's). So I am most vocal in arguing against unreasonable criticism of gcc or Linux, or promoting their good points - because I think they are technically better in many ways than the alternatives. But I don't think they are perfect, nor do I shy from criticising them or saying when I think something else is a technically better choice. And I try to make it clear that I write /my/ opinions, for /my/ uses - these may not be the same as other people's. Note that what may appear to be hypocrisy, may be differences that were not clearly explained (such as the difference between the compiler(s) used for building the operating system, and the compiler(s) used for applications on the operating system). > > I'm not playing King Lear, here, or even Alceste; I'm playing Mercutio. > Both, indeed all, your houses deserve the plague, and if I curse Linux > more often it's only because Linux is more often blindly defended here. > OK, fair enough.
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Reliable C tutorial for beginners MehdiAmini <atorrses@gmail.com> - 2017-04-04 15:08 +0430
Re: Reliable C tutorial for beginners Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-04-04 14:10 +0100
Re: Reliable C tutorial for beginners fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2017-04-04 09:12 -0700
Re: Reliable C tutorial for beginners MehdiAmini <atorrses@gmail.com> - 2017-04-05 16:49 +0430
Re: Reliable C tutorial for beginners Alla <vitale.alla@gmail.com> - 2017-04-05 16:41 +0300
Re: Reliable C tutorial for beginners raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-04-05 11:10 +0000
Re: Reliable C tutorial for beginners jm.bourguet@gmail.com - 2017-04-05 05:55 -0700
Re: Reliable C tutorial for beginners fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2017-04-05 08:01 -0700
Re: Reliable C tutorial for beginners supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-05 09:45 -0700
Re: Reliable C tutorial for beginners Jean-Marc Bourguet <jm@bourguet.org> - 2017-04-05 20:04 +0200
Re: Reliable C tutorial for beginners David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-05 20:36 +0200
Re: Reliable C tutorial for beginners supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-05 14:26 -0700
Re: Reliable C tutorial for beginners David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-06 09:41 +0200
Re: Reliable C tutorial for beginners supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-06 07:53 -0700
Re: Reliable C tutorial for beginners scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-04-06 15:12 +0000
Re: Reliable C tutorial for beginners Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-06 09:12 -0700
Re: Reliable C tutorial for beginners scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-04-06 16:20 +0000
Re: Reliable C tutorial for beginners Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-06 09:26 -0700
Re: Reliable C tutorial for beginners Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-06 11:53 -0700
Re: Reliable C tutorial for beginners Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2017-04-06 12:26 -0400
Re: Reliable C tutorial for beginners scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-04-06 17:09 +0000
Re: Reliable C tutorial for beginners supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-06 10:37 -0700
Re: Reliable C tutorial for beginners scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-04-06 18:50 +0000
Re: Reliable C tutorial for beginners David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-06 21:46 +0200
Re: Reliable C tutorial for beginners supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-06 14:51 -0700
Re: Reliable C tutorial for beginners raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-04-09 13:42 +0000
Re: Linux and GCC Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-04-09 16:45 +0200
Re: Linux and GCC David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-09 16:50 +0200
Re: Linux and GCC Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-04-09 17:06 +0200
Re: Linux and GCC raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-04-14 11:39 +0000
Re: Linux and GCC Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-16 17:41 -0700
Re: Linux and GCC David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-17 17:46 +0200
Re: Linux and GCC David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-17 17:37 +0200
Re: Linux and GCC supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-17 09:19 -0700
Re: Reliable C tutorial for beginners Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-05 13:50 -0700
Re: Reliable C tutorial for beginners supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-05 14:47 -0700
Re: Reliable C tutorial for beginners David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-06 09:45 +0200
Re: Reliable C tutorial for beginners jm.bourguet@gmail.com - 2017-04-06 01:57 -0700
Re: Reliable C tutorial for beginners Real Troll <real.troll@trolls.com> - 2017-04-05 15:16 -0500
Re: Reliable C tutorial for beginners GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-04-06 11:56 +0200
Re: Reliable C tutorial for beginners Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2017-04-06 14:14 +0000
Re: Reliable C tutorial for beginners "C-bot" <cbot@example.com> - 2017-04-08 01:18 +0000
Re: Reliable C tutorial for beginners Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2017-04-08 14:54 +0000
Re: Reliable C tutorial for beginners Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-04-08 19:01 +0100
Re: Reliable C tutorial for beginners Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-04-09 00:04 +0100
Re: Reliable C tutorial for beginners Jean-Marc Bourguet <jm@bourguet.org> - 2017-04-09 14:03 +0200
Re: Reliable C tutorial for beginners Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2017-04-09 15:02 -0600
Re: Reliable C tutorial for beginners "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-04-09 14:13 -0700
Re: Reliable C tutorial for beginners Real Troll <real.troll@trolls.com> - 2017-04-09 17:30 -0400
Re: Reliable C tutorial for beginners Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-04-10 18:35 +0100
csiph-web