Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 15 Jan 1998 22:26:10 -0800 (PST) | From | Blu3Viper <> | Subject | Re: Kernel 2.0.33 can not be compiled by gcc libc 5.4.23 and 5.4.33? |
| |
On Fri, 16 Jan 1998, Mitch Davis wrote:
> I'm sure you remember the easter egg that Ken Thompson revealed a > few years ago. It's well worth reading: > > http://www.wins.uva.nl/~mes/jargon/b/backdoor.html > http://www.acm.org/classics/sep95/ > > With this in mind, many people still maintain machines that they have > read _every_ line of source for. To them, running an outside binary > is anathema.
the question is whether you want to compile a compiler with a compiler that is known and documented as broken or use a binary that has been distributed and used for nigh unto a year with no complaints.
rely on a broken compiler? rely on someone else?
if you insist on using a broken compiler, don't expect help. if you use a broken compiler to make your new compiler, don't expect people to have any faith in your results.
-d
[reply to: david@127-0-0-1.kalifornia.com without the 127-0-0-1.] *** *** Flames will go to /dev/null ** WARNING ** SPAM mail will be returned to you at a *** *** minimum rate of 50,000 copies per email
| |