Re: [linux-audio-dev] [ot] [rant] gcc, you let me down one time too many

[Jack O'Quin] The trouble with our surely no less quixotic hero (coming up with this drama has made me know him so well I could sometimes swear he's alive) is that he's lazy, and he's gotten addicted to the seductions of cleverness, always looking for ways to evade the load of work that a more modest way imposes on the aspiring. So, he's a bit reluctant to go back to the verbose and honest ways of plain C. He might even have trouble fluently reading and writing 25-character identifiers, so shortened is his patience and so re-evolved his typing. I'm not a big fan of turning this case into a tragedy, so I'm quite hopeful there'll be Part II to be played to the same public, in which this conflict will be ultimately resolved. Nor would I care to :) though what I've experienced is enough to affect the full range of what I used to think of as a main work, the effects being pretty much the equivalent of a nuclear blast to be precise. I've looked up a bit of the public documentation of the vtable movement decision process when gcc 3 was in the works, and the only clearly stated reason seems the Solaris compiler having the habit of placing the vtable at this + 0. Maybe I should have delved deeper in the hope of finding a better reason but reading that somehow made me turn my interest elsewhere; the prospect of fighting this decision seemed unattractive anyway (gcc 3.3 was already shipped so late was I to notice). However, I'm constantly rethinking the way I make music and how I use the computer to aid me, so the next attempt, if there'll be one, can reflect newly found concepts. Thanks for the good words, Tim