Subject: Re: Style guide
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Chris G. Demetriou <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 05/28/1997 19:57:45
> > If i had to wait until gcc worked well on the alpha (where "well" is
> > defined as "as well as the native compiler"), many would say that I'd
> > still be waiting.
> > At the time, for the initial bootstrap, there _was_ no real choice.
> I'm curious -- how did you self-host the port without a compiler? Or
> didn't you?
Huh? Did you actually _read_ what I wrote? Don't be disingenuous.
The initial C library was build with the DEC tools, the initial
binaries (including gcc, of course) were built with the DEC tools.
gcc and the system built with gcc came ... a fair bit later (after I
hacked around a few bugs in gcc and the rest of the toolchain).
> Also, was the DU compiler non-ANSI?
(1) that is irrelevant to the point I was making; you stated that
everybody could use gcc, and that's what I was responding to. At
least in the first stages of a port that may not be true.
(2) Given that gcc may not always be a reasonable option, the
developer may be stuck -- if only temporarily -- with a unfriedly
vendor compiler. OSF/1's compiler _was_ ANSI-capable, but that isn't
necessarily universally true.
I'm not against changing the kernel and system to use ansi prototypes
and function definitions all around, but the 'gcc can be used
everywhere' argument is for the birds.