>

> Are you for real?

>



[T.J. ] Just to clear things up.

> If so:

>

> 1) Drepper maintained glibc, not gcc. These are two separate projects.



True. I always treat GCC and glibc as somewhat synonymous since they go
hand in hand. You can't have one without the other for all intents as far
as Linux is concerned.



> 2) Clang is a C and C++ frontend for LLVM. It does not contain a C
library.



Good point. It is however far superior to GCC in many regards.



>

> 3) I don't think this is a great place for unsubstantiated attacks on
Ulrich

> Drepper or on Ulrich Drepper's leadership of glibc.

Attacking Drepper or his reputation was never my intention, so clearly
this is only a misunderstanding on your part. I know my comments about him
ignoring bug reports are correct, I've read the reports myself. That is
100% accurate. Although obviously when I wrote the comment I should have
said glibc instead of GCC. I used both in the previous sentences and did
not specifically separate them when I mentioned Drepper. Like everyone
else, I am only human and occasionally make errors. Thank you for the
correction. Mea Culpa.



> 4) I also don't think this is a great place for unsubstantiated attacks on
a

> compiler suite.

Unsubstantiated? I must humbly disagree. GCC has a long history of open
bugs that do not get corrected for years. This one took 10 years - 10 YEARS
- for to be corrected: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18501.
I'd hardly call that criticism unsubstantiated.

Saying that the GCC is a "mess" is perhaps subjective, but it is hardly
unfair.  It is a complex piece of software that like X11, to needs its
development be shaken up every now and again.  GCC has been completely
replaced by a fork once already.  EGCS replaced GCC and  simply took the old
name GCC name.    

T.J.