Jonathan Wakely <jwakely....@gmail.com> writes: > Wrong. I wouldn't bother replying to you again in this thread, but I > feel that as a gcc maintainer I should confirm that Eli S. is right > here; and nobody else I know agrees with your definition of extension > as "every non-standard aspect of the compiler's behaviour, whether > intentional or accidental". That's just silly.
GCC's support for implicit int is clearly intentional. I never claimed that accidental GNU CC behavior was part of GNU C. > No, Eli S. is quite right. [...] > And when the compiler is wrong and the documentation is correct, the > compiler is fixed. And the documentation is wrong, while the translator is correct. GCC development, being part of the GNU project, is supposed to act in its interests and that of Free Software in general. I remind you of of this statement, which was made here, on this list, by clearer minds: We cannot do everything all users want, and sometimes a maintainer has to say no to users. "You cannot please everyone," as the saying goes. There are many kinds of reasons which can sometimes be good reasons to say no. But maintainers should always say no reluctantly--never eagerly. We should never aggressively cause trouble for users today, just because someday it might be necessary. That is like amputating limbs because someday they might be crushed. This treatment of users brings shame on the GNU Project. I ask everyone therefore not to suggest that we should treat users this way. And yes, such shameful treatment is directly harmful to the goals of the GNU Project: at least one organization, likely more, has been forced to adopt proprietary compilers as a direct result.
