Mark Duckworth wrote:
I've never seen a GCC ICE that wasn't some kind of unreliable
hardware problem. I used to get them when my falcon was overclocked
too high.
Just for the pleasure of contradicting you, there is a bunch of
possible causes of GCC failures or other crashes. Just have a look at
the current regression list:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&short_desc_type=allwordssubstr&short_desc=4.4&target_milestone=4.3.5&target_milestone=4.4.3&known_to_fail_type=allwordssubstr&known_to_work_type=allwordssubstr&long_desc_type=allwordssubstr&long_desc=&bug_file_loc_type=allwordssubstr&bug_file_loc=&gcchost_type=allwordssubstr&gcchost=&gcctarget_type=allwordssubstr&gcctarget=&gccbuild_type=allwordssubstr&gccbuild=&keywords_type=allwords&keywords=&bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=SUSPENDED&bug_status=WAITING&bug_status=REOPENED&priority=P1&priority=P2&priority=P3&emailtype1=substring&email1=&emailtype2=substring&email2=&bugidtype=include&bug_id=&votes=&chfieldfrom=&chfieldto=Now&chfieldvalue=&cmdtype=doit&order=Reuse+same+sort+as+last+time&field0-0-0=noop&type0-0-0=noop&value0-0-0=
I don't want to say here that GCC is bad software.
Like any software, it has bugs. And 99.5% of the time, it works very
well. It has not more bugs than other software of the same size, it
has just the honesty to have a public list of bugs.
Closed-source software is not less buggy because the bugs are not
well-known.