your compiler is a piece of shit

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Serious Hardware/Software Crap > YOSPOS > your compiler is a piece of shit

«‹›4 »

click on all these pieces of poo poo
	gcc
	clang
	icc (intel cool compiler for cool cats)
	shaggar diversity wheelchair-burger-king-kid option (msvc)
	former amd employee welfare option (open64)
	turbo (i dont think so, tim)
	ritchie rich c

[Edit Poll (moderators only)]

View Results

Breakfast All Day: Oct 21, 2004

so says linus "no holds" torvalds

quote:

Ok, so I'm looking at the code generation and your compiler is pure
and utter *poo poo*.

...

Lookie here, your compiler does some absolutely insane things with the
spilling, including spilling a *constant*. For chrissake, that
compiler shouldn't have been allowed to graduate from kindergarten.
We're talking "sloth that was dropped on the head as a baby" level
retardation levels here:

https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/7/24/584

# ? Jul 26, 2014 13:43

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 29, 2024 01:25

Valeyard: Mar 30, 2012; Grimey Drawer

gcc ftw

# ? Jul 26, 2014 13:44

Valeyard: Mar 30, 2012; Grimey Drawer

Instead of using a "compiler" for my code I use a "composter" to unlock it's true potential

# ? Jul 26, 2014 13:45

Breakfast All Day: Oct 21, 2004

radio poll because i hate you all

# ? Jul 26, 2014 13:47

Breakfast All Day: Oct 21, 2004

Valeyard posted:

Instead of using a "compiler" for my code I use a "composter" to unlock it's true potential

Please use a newline character every 70-72 characters instead of assuming
that all forums programs will break that extra long line up into a readable
format.

# ? Jul 26, 2014 14:16

Cold on a Cob: Feb 6, 2006; i've seen so much, i'm going blind
and i'm brain dead virtually; College Slice

your poll is broken

# ? Jul 26, 2014 14:27

coffeetable: Feb 5, 2006; TELL ME AGAIN HOW GREAT BRITAIN WOULD BE IF IT WAS RULED BY THE MERCILESS JACKBOOT OF PRINCE CHARLES

YES I DO TALK TO PLANTS ACTUALLY

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

The Clang and LLVM developers reach different conclusions from ours
because they do not share our values and goals. They object to the
measures we have taken to defend freedom because they see the
inconvenience of them and do not recognize (or don't care about) the
need for them. I would guess they describe their work as "open
source" and do not talk about freedom. They have been supported by
Apple, the company which hates our freedom so much that its app store
for the ithings _requires_ all apps to be nonfree. (*)

The nonfree compilers that are now based on LLVM prove that I was
right -- that the danger was real. If I had "opened" up GCC code for
use in nonfree combinations, that would not have prevented a defeat;
rather, it would have caused that defeat to occur very soon.

For GCC to be replaced by another technically superior compiler that
defended freedom equally well would cause me some personal regret, but
I would rejoice for the community's advance. The existence of LLVM is
a terrible setback for our community precisely because it is not
copylefted and can be used as the basis for nonfree compilers -- so
that all contribution to LLVM directly helps proprietary software as
much as it helps us.

The cause of the setback is the existence of a non-copylefted compiler
that therefore becomes the base for nonfree compilers. The identity
of that compiler -- whether it be LLVM, GCC, or something else -- is a
secondary detail. To make GCC available for such use would be
throwing in the towel. If that enables GCC to "win", the victory
would be hollow, because it would not be a victory for what really
matters: users' freedom.

If you think we ought to "compromise" on this point, please see
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/compromise.html.

The only code that helps us and not our adversaries is copylefted
code. Free software released under a pushover license is available
for us to use, but available to our adversaries just as well. If you
want your work to give freedom an advantage, use the leverage
available to you -- copyleft your code. I invite those working on
major add-ons to LLVM to release them under GNU GPL
version-3-or-later.

If you want to argue for changing the goals of the GNU Project, the
proper place to do this is gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org. Please move this
discussion there.

* If a binary is made from published source code, but you can't
install your binary of a modified version of that source code, the
binary is proprietary even if the source code is free. (See
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html.) A binary in Apple's
app store may be made from published free source code, but under
Apple's rules and Apple's DRM, the binary can't be free.

--
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
https://www.fsf.org https://www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software.
Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call.

# ? Jul 26, 2014 14:30

Breakfast All Day: Oct 21, 2004

im the guy obsessed with free and open systems advocating using the phone

# ? Jul 26, 2014 14:33

PandaCookies: Mar 19, 2009; Delicious endangered confection!

stallman is a weirdo.

# ? Jul 26, 2014 15:46

minivanmegafun: Jul 27, 2004

PandaCookies posted:

stallman is a weirdo.

# ? Jul 26, 2014 16:05

Sweevo: Nov 8, 2007; i sometimes throw cables away

i mean straight into the bin without spending 10+ years in the box of might-come-in-handy-someday first

im a fucking monster

i loving hate stallman and i will :toot:

when he dies alone

# ? Jul 26, 2014 16:17

minivanmegafun: Jul 27, 2004

Sweevo posted:

i loving hate stallman and i will when he dies alone

i'm mostly indifferent about rms. he's a crazy whackjob but mostly harmless.

esr though...

# ? Jul 26, 2014 16:19

Breakfast All Day: Oct 21, 2004

minivanmegafun posted:

wicked scar from battling the evil forces of closed software

# ? Jul 26, 2014 16:20

The Management: Jan 2, 2010; sup, bitch?

GCC is garbage, use clang every day

# ? Jul 26, 2014 16:32

Squinty Applebottom: Jan 1, 2013

i use the intel fortran compiler day to day

# ? Jul 26, 2014 16:35

z0rlandi viSSer: Nov 5, 2013

wish the compiler would spill your posts out of this forum, OP

:xd:

# ? Jul 26, 2014 16:42

Luigi Thirty: Apr 30, 2006; Emergency confection port.

you're missing watcom c and greenhills c op voted 1

# ? Jul 26, 2014 16:56

Breakfast All Day: Oct 21, 2004

The Management posted:

GCC is garbage, use clang every day

what did you think the g in gnu stands for in the base case

# ? Jul 26, 2014 17:06

Bloody: Mar 3, 2013

you forgot iarcc

# ? Jul 26, 2014 17:24

Breakfast All Day: Oct 21, 2004

Luigi Thirty posted:

you're missing watcom c and greenhills c op voted 1

Bloody posted:

you forgot iarcc

no ones cares about the embedded compiler running your realdoll

# ? Jul 26, 2014 17:38

Shark Sandwich: Sep 6, 2010; by R. Guyovich

minivanmegafun posted:

as if i already wasn't terrified of rms molesting my birds

# ? Jul 26, 2014 17:54

computer toucher: Jan 8, 2012

coffeetable posted:

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

The Clang and LLVM developers reach different conclusions from ours
because they do not share our values and goals. They object to the
measures we have taken to defend freedom because they see the
inconvenience of them and do not recognize (or don't care about) the
need for them. I would guess they describe their work as "open
source" and do not talk about freedom. They have been supported by
Apple, the company which hates our freedom so much that its app store
for the ithings _requires_ all apps to be nonfree. (*)

The nonfree compilers that are now based on LLVM prove that I was
right -- that the danger was real. If I had "opened" up GCC code for
use in nonfree combinations, that would not have prevented a defeat;
rather, it would have caused that defeat to occur very soon.

For GCC to be replaced by another technically superior compiler that
defended freedom equally well would cause me some personal regret, but
I would rejoice for the community's advance. The existence of LLVM is
a terrible setback for our community precisely because it is not
copylefted and can be used as the basis for nonfree compilers -- so
that all contribution to LLVM directly helps proprietary software as
much as it helps us.

The cause of the setback is the existence of a non-copylefted compiler
that therefore becomes the base for nonfree compilers. The identity
of that compiler -- whether it be LLVM, GCC, or something else -- is a
secondary detail. To make GCC available for such use would be
throwing in the towel. If that enables GCC to "win", the victory
would be hollow, because it would not be a victory for what really
matters: users' freedom.

If you think we ought to "compromise" on this point, please see
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/compromise.html.

The only code that helps us and not our adversaries is copylefted
code. Free software released under a pushover license is available
for us to use, but available to our adversaries just as well. If you
want your work to give freedom an advantage, use the leverage
available to you -- copyleft your code. I invite those working on
major add-ons to LLVM to release them under GNU GPL
version-3-or-later.

If you want to argue for changing the goals of the GNU Project, the
proper place to do this is gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org. Please move this
discussion there.

* If a binary is made from published source code, but you can't
install your binary of a modified version of that source code, the
binary is proprietary even if the source code is free. (See
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html.) A binary in Apple's
app store may be made from published free source code, but under
Apple's rules and Apple's DRM, the binary can't be free.

--
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
https://www.fsf.org https://www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software.
Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call.

didn't read anything after the ]]. rms is insufferable.

# ? Jul 26, 2014 17:58

Breakfast All Day: Oct 21, 2004

ive forked the fsf and made myself president. surely rms will not object

# ? Jul 26, 2014 17:59

stoutfish: Oct 8, 2012; by zen death robot

i don't use compiler languages

# ? Jul 26, 2014 18:01

Squinty Applebottom: Jan 1, 2013

Breakfast All Day posted:

what did you think the g in gnu stands for in the base case

garbage?

# ? Jul 26, 2014 18:11

coffeetable: Feb 5, 2006; TELL ME AGAIN HOW GREAT BRITAIN WOULD BE IF IT WAS RULED BY THE MERCILESS JACKBOOT OF PRINCE CHARLES

YES I DO TALK TO PLANTS ACTUALLY