Looks like you chose to nitpick two minor points of my last message instead of focusing on the single substantial point which still remains.
However, I will still respond to your nitpicks: public is public. If you don't want to be seen as an unsavory character, you would do well to not say mean and nasty things about other human beings in public (and as the Donald Sterling case taught us, perhaps even in private). If you want to be a truly virtuous human being, you will not do so either in public or in private but that is certainly up to you to decide. I think it is the case that a person who bad mouths people in their [perceived] absence but not in their presence is a morally compromised individual but that is for you to decide if you want to keep company with that sort or not. Just be forewarned: if they are bad mouthing other people around you then they are likely doing the same about you in your absence.
My response to your second nitpick is essentially the same as the one above. But, I would still be interested to see if you have any thoughts on the [remaining previously ignored] substantial point in my last message to you.
> the single substantial point which still remains
If you mean the fact that in his LKML post (but not in the GCC bug tracker) Linus attributed the bug to "incompetence/ willful ignorance/ etc" instead of assuming that it just snuck in (I'm not sure I agree with that interpretation, but I'll adopt it here for the sake of discussion), for a bug that's severe enough to make Linus prohibit kernel compiles using the affected version of gcc, I'm not sure what the difference is, practically speaking. Either way, the compiler can't be used with the bug present, so, substantively, it doesn't matter whether the bug just snuck in or the GCC developers wilfully ignored the behavior; that version of gcc can't be used to compile the kernel until the bug is fixed.
As you so aptly pointed out, the GCC maintainers are no fools but rather mature, competent professionals. I think the explanation that it was a simple oversight is far more likely than malice or incompetence.
However, I will still respond to your nitpicks: public is public. If you don't want to be seen as an unsavory character, you would do well to not say mean and nasty things about other human beings in public (and as the Donald Sterling case taught us, perhaps even in private). If you want to be a truly virtuous human being, you will not do so either in public or in private but that is certainly up to you to decide. I think it is the case that a person who bad mouths people in their [perceived] absence but not in their presence is a morally compromised individual but that is for you to decide if you want to keep company with that sort or not. Just be forewarned: if they are bad mouthing other people around you then they are likely doing the same about you in your absence.
My response to your second nitpick is essentially the same as the one above. But, I would still be interested to see if you have any thoughts on the [remaining previously ignored] substantial point in my last message to you.