------- Comment #57 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-14 15:09 ------- (In reply to comment #55) > (In reply to comment #53) > > Look at the page history, it was removed by someone else, probably because > > your > > comment is badly written and not suitable for the Wikipedia page. > > I thought that was your mom, sorry.
Good way to make a convincing argument. You've tried to turn this into a "your mom" argument in three replies now, but noone seems to be rising to the bait. > No, the worse is being wrong and don't admit it. When we admit we learn, so > I've been learning quite a lot with you guys. You didn't admit anything, so in > your mind LDT read accesses a still prohibitive, and crap like that. Or did > you > think I would forget all the crap that you said that I shot down and you > didn't > admit?? Your future employers (if any!) will see that your ability to learn > simple stuff is impaired. Are you confusing me with Michael? I've not said anything about LDT. What am I supposed to admit? That GCC compiles valid C++ code? That I've wasted time replying to you? That's true, but it's my weekend and I'm waiting for a GCC testsuite run to finish so I have time. You keep accusing GCC of not compiling useful C++ code, but haven't shown a valid example yet. I am happy to learn but I don't see anything worth learning from you, your opinions or your "debating" style. Even your trolling skills are poor, and you started so well. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45265
