From: francis@vnet.ibm.com (Tim Francis)
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 92 22:05:21 EDT
Subject: Re: Tidbits about NT and OS/2 from the trade rags.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Reply-To: francis@vnet.ibm.com
Organization: IBM Canada Lab, WorkFrame/2 development
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not those of IBM

In article <1992Oct5.161201.20918@hellgate.utah.edu>,
brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>
> ...
>
>                                         ..... 3 of 10 programs I
>compile with a compiler that has had 14 bug fix releases still fail when
>optimized.  This is a ridiculous track record.
>If I had a real alternative, I'd be demanding a refund.
>Unfortunately I seem to be stuck till Borland gets its product out.
>
>I have given up on WorkSet/2.  I have no time to track through the 3
>programs (which quite possibly represent three separate problems) that
>fail when compiled with the optimizer turned on.  And I'm not about to
>send IBM the entire set of code (I would have to send my whole set of
>support libraries too)... so from my standpoint, they'll just have to
>do without my input.  I'm dealing with a set of over 100 programs.  I
>tried 10, and three failed... I can only assume that yet more would
>turn up if I tried the remaining ones.  .....

I'm sorry you're having such bad luck with our compiler.  I wish there
were some easy way that we could correct the problems you're having.
I won't attempt to deny that there are still bugs in the compiler (is
any software ever completely bug free?), but let me just make a couple
of points.

 - OS/2 is being decried for being so slow to release bug fixes.  Does
   the fact that we decided to release CSD's as we fix bugs (as opposed
   to waiting for 6 months and releasing a single CSD) imply anything
   about the number of bugs?  It shouldn't.

 - I believe several million lines of code were pushed through the
   compiler before it was even generally available; much more than that
   must have gone through since then.  Some people have run into bugs,
   to be sure, but I'm not aware of anyone who's had anything close to
   the failure rates you report (30% of your code).  I don't know if
   your code is more complicated than most, but it's unfortunate that
   you feel unable to report the bugs you find, as you're obviously
   stressing parts of the compiler that most others (including us,
   apparently) are not.   Please don't misunderstand me here -- I'm not
   asking you to test our compiler.  You have a right to expect a
   working compiler, and a right to be upset when you find a bug.  It's
   just that now you've found the bug, it would surely be better for
   everyone concerned (you, us, and every other user of the compiler)
   if we could fix it.

 - The fact that your code is still failing after "14 bug fix releases"
   is partly related to the fact that we didn't know (and still don't
   know, to my knowledge) how your code is failing.  Again, I'm not
   trying to blame you --far from it-- but it would seem to me that
   after you've spent 12 hours narrowing a bug down, spending another
   2 minutes to send a note to cset2@vnet.ibm.com (even if all you are
   able to do is outline the symptoms of the bug) is not too much of a
   burden.   I believe Ian gave you a workaround for the only bug you've
   reported within 12 hours.

I understand your frustration.  I've used buggy development tools in the
past, and know how annoying it can be.  It's for exactly that reason
that we are so determined to fix any bug in the compiler.  That's also
why Ian, Dave & myself (and others) follow these newsgroups.  But without
any hint as to the nature, or even the existence of a bug, there's only
so much we can do.

Please, we're here to help you.  Let us.   -tim
Organization: Sophomore, Physics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA