Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 19:57:21 +0000 From: James Mansion <james@wgold.demon.co.uk> To: Warner Losh <imp@village.org> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Barb problem, FOUND Message-ID: <333196A1.51F3@wgold.demon.co.uk> References: <332BC869.37B7@wgold.demon.co.uk> <199703160612.XAA13150@rover.village.org> <199703171856.LAA07505@rover.village.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Oh come on! Just because a particular compiler is full of bugs doesn't mean that a construct allowed by the language spec is dubious. No way. Maybe the compiler is dubious ... Get a better compiler. If necessary use a platform which has a choice of compilers that are less dubious. James Warner Losh wrote: > > In message <332BC869.37B7@wgold.demon.co.uk> James Mansion writes: > : In no way shape or form is an inline virtual function (destructor or > : not) 'dunious'. Its quite legal. (Whether you might consider it to be > : bad style is another matter. You can't always avoid it if the class is > : a template, though that's clearly not the case with tvision) > > If compilers don't handle it, then the construct is dubious. :-) > > : If the compiler cannot handle code like this, then the compiler should > : be fixed. > > Actually, it is a bug in the as program and it should be fixed. > > Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?333196A1.51F3>