Re: Patch to execve

[Jeroen Ruigrok/asmodai <asmodai@xxxxxx>]

-On [20050227 08:42], Bill Hacker (wbh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
>Kevin M. Kilbride wrote:

>>Actually, in playing with this further, I can see that it is the base 
>>GCC compiler that emits this warning, not the -Wcast-qual option. This 
>>is much worse. The warning cannot be suppressed, even though it is 
>>warning about obviously permitted behavior.
>
>I apreciate your thorough research, but do not see this as a 'show stopper'.
>
>Imperfect, yes.  Inconsistent, yes.
>
>In need of correction - 'probably', but not necessarily 'absolutely'.

Compilers should not be inconsistent, not be imperfect.  It is the building
stone of software and if the compiler fails to stack up by having X bugs a
month/year I seriously doubt the usefulness of said compiler outside of the
toy realm.

-- 
Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven <asmodai(at)wxs.nl> / asmodai / kita no mono
Free Tibet! http://www.savetibet.org/ | http://ashemedai.deviantart.com/
http://www.tendra.org/   | http://www.in-nomine.org/
I disagree with everything you say.  But I will defend to the death your
right to say it.