Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cwjcc!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!osu-cis!att!cbnews!lvc
From: lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM (Lawrence V. Cipriani)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: gcc vs. commercial C compiler (Sun's)
Message-ID: <3627@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 31 Jan 89 00:13:55 GMT
References: <286@proton.UUCP> <3621@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Reply-To: lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM (Lawrence V. Cipriani)
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 18

In article <3621@cbnews.ATT.COM> I write:
++In article <286@proton.UUCP>, nusbaum@meson.uucp (R. James Nusbaum) writes:
++ Does anyone have any thoughts on the use of gcc (a relatively new
++ compiler as compilers go) vs. using Sun's C compiler in a medical
++ software project where software failure could cause loss of life?

+Please tell us what hospitals buy your product so we may stay away from them.

Or what the name of the pacemaker is.  I have some elderly relatives I wouldn't
want using it.  Please don't offer me reassurances, they won't help.  I've been
in the software business a while and I haven't found a program yet I haven't
been able to break.  Life critical software makes me very nervous.

Gcc is still being developed, and has many known bugs.  There are special
disclaimers on it above and beyond the standard GNU disclaimers, to that
effect, so you probably don't want to use it anyway.
-- 
Larry Cipriani, att!cbnews!lvc or lvc@cbnews.att.com