lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [Jan]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 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


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:41    [W:0.315 / U:0.080 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site