"The existence of code written by people who should never have been allowed to touch a keyboard cannot be allowed to prevent a correct impl"
-
-
Replying to @jtilander
@jtilander from here: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12518 … ... pretty fantastic :) I wish I could be as hardline!3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @jtilander
@jtilander It is a *completely* moronic standpoint to take for someone who supplies software that fundamental.4 replies 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @jtilander
@jtilander@rygorous ... and thus creates headaches and language dialects for everyone else...2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jtilander
@jtilander@rygorous I think a valid consideration is just how big a percentage of people "everyone else" are.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jjacobsson
@jjacobsson@jtilander Exactly. Of all people affected by this change in libc semantics, what's the percentage of actual C programmers?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @rygorous
@rygorous@jjacobsson "change"? it was always there! same thing when ppl try to put a blind eye to strict aliasing. It was always there!2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jtilander
@jtilander@jjacobsson Bullshit. It was there in the spec, but you don't link against the spec, you link against libc!2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @rygorous
@rygorous@jjacobsson arguing that code breaks when said function clearly states undefined behavior is futile.3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
@jtilander @rygorous @jjacobsson I would say the opposite. The hard argument to make is breaking lots of code because the spec says you can.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.