leland@DRAGONFLY.WRI.COM (02/28/91)
Regarding the following posting: >>From: mike%tuvie@mcsun.uucp (Michael K. Gschwind) >>Organization: Vienna University of Technology >>Subject: cc 6.8 - beware >> >> >>I've just looked at the release notes of cc 6.8 - those of you who >>don't read such crap as "KNOWN BUGS AND LIMITATIONS", beware: >> ---< deleted excerpt from release notes >--- >> >>Now add to this the known problems of sr 10.3 - >>I am just wondering if sr 10.3 + cc 6.8 are really "the best OS and >>compiler ever sold by HP/Apollo". - Well, they could be, considering what >>they sold us before... This kind of posting is both unwarranted and unfair. One of the most likeable things about Apollo (and now, I guess, HP) is that they try to release known bugs in an easy, condensed form. Every operating system has bugs, and virtually every C compiler has difficulty with some code. HP/Apollo has the decency to spell out what is wrong -- and what is right -- with every product they release. If you were having to break in 700,000+ lines of code to the new compiler, you would be *overjoyed* at knowing what types of problems you are likely to encounter. Thank you HP/A, for tell me what hurdles to expect! I only wish you had given me a workaround for the problem, as now I'll have to try a few of the usual options until I find a working code variant. As for postings such as the one above, I would ask that they not be permitted to cause HP/A to in any way debate their policies on releasing known bugs -- but be cast aside as written by a user who has obviously undergone excessive cranial calcification. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Leland E. Ray | Systems Administration -- Unix Platforms | I am *not* Bob! Wolfram Research, Inc. | (217) 398 - 0700 | I had *nothing* to do with it! leland@wri.com | | #include <std_disclaimer.h> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------