Another C compiler bug

[diamond@tkovoa]

In article <LANGLEY.90Nov1082648 at ds1.scri.fsu.edu> langley at ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Randolph Langley) writes:

>I got ANOTHER one [patch] yesterday from DEC - wish they would release 
>when the code was little more steady, instead of these unending patches.

Please don't express wishes like that.  If you wish to wait for the
next release (waiting for a steadier release, as you say), instead of
applying patches when available, you always have that option.  Some
of us are irritated when we have to wait, when we don't have options.

>I refuse to yield to the temptation of making a smart remark about
>users providing what little QC that DEC seems to be doing.

'Fraid I don't don't know any evidence that Digital's software QC is any
better or worse than the general standard for the software industry.
(Except for a few cases such as the VMS Ada compiler and VMS mathematical
routines, but you're probably not interested in those.)

[But I am also disgusted with the low general standard in the software
industry.  The only solutions I can suggest are:
(1) don't buy defective software -- just do without it; or
(1a) sue for refunds of purchase prices ("The vendor defrauded me -- this
thing is labelled 'C compiler' but it isn't a C compiler"), go without the
software, and "goto" (1).]

Disclaimer:  This entire article is personal opinion.  I do not know if
the company holds any relevant opinions, nor what they may be.
-- 
Norman Diamond, Nihon DEC    diamond at tkov50.enet.dec.com
                                    (tkou02 is scheduled for demolition)
We steer like a sports car:  I use opinions; the company uses the rack.