Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!apple!voder!pyramid!prls!philabs!ttidca!paulb
From: paulb@ttidca.TTI.COM (Paul Blumstein)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: gcc vs. commercial C compiler (Sun's)
Message-ID: <3811@ttidca.TTI.COM>
Date: 2 Feb 89 23:32:49 GMT
References: <3627@cbnews.ATT.COM> <1324@goofy.megatest.UUCP> <35961@think.UUCP>
Reply-To: paulb@ncc1701.tti.com (Paul Blumstein)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Chaos
Lines: 22

I think that everyone is missing the point.  First, no compiler is
completely bug-free.  Second, most widely-available compilers (except
release 1.0 of anything :-) will work properly with non-funny code.
(If it doesn't, then the place where it is not working must be in the
funny class :-).  Thirdly, a freshly-written application surely has its
own bugs (& don't call me surely :-).

Put the 3 items together & you (at least "I") conclude: The application,
being critical, better have a really good QA.  This QA will find problems,
whether code-induced or compiler induced.  Care in choosing the compiler
will only lessen the likelihood of having to debug down to the generated
code level (blech), not the likelihood of releasing a buggy product.

"I'm sorry Mrs. Smith, your husband died of a byte-swap error".

=============================================================================
Paul Blumstein       | America may be unique in being a country which has
Citicorp/TTI         | leapt from barbarism to decadence without touching
Santa Monica, CA     | civilization.       --  John O'Hara
		     +-------------------------------------------------------
{philabs,csun,psivax}!ttidca!paulb  or  paulb@ttidca.TTI.COM
If asked, Citicorp would say "Paul who?"