Path: utzoo!yunexus!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uunet!mcsun!ukc!edcastle!lfcs!nick From: nick@lfcs.ed.ac.uk (Nick Rothwell) Newsgroups: comp.sys.transputer Subject: Re: Maple and others: Lack of good C compiler!!! Message-ID: <4306@castle.ed.ac.uk> Date: 29 May 90 11:17:45 GMT Article-I.D.: castle.4306 References: <9005280913.AA10653@tcgould.TN.CORNELL.EDU> Reply-To: nick@lfcs.ed.ac.uk (Nick Rothwell) Organization: Jenny Agutter Appreciation Society of Edinburgh Lines: 21 In-reply-to: K312240@AEARN.BITNET (Klaus Kusche) In article <9005280913.AA10653@tcgould.TN.CORNELL.EDU>, K312240@AEARN (Klaus Kusche) writes: >*** As long as there is no C compiler for transputers which compiles >several ten thousand lines of standard Unix C code without modification >and troubles, and generates reasonably efficient (and correct!) code, >and comes with Unix-compatible libraries, such ports will not happen! >They are not worth the trouble! *** Please define "standard Unix C code". I hope you aren't suggesting that code written in C for some unix will work on any other. If people write godawful non-portable code for unix, why should ports to the transputer be any easier? It's not the fault of the compilers. I wrote about 20000 lines of code in C under BSD unix. The port to the transputer was pretty immediate. This is because I didn't hack it. Nick. -- Nick Rothwell, Laboratory for Foundations of Computer Science, Edinburgh. nick@lfcs.ed.ac.uk !mcsun!ukc!lfcs!nick ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ Ich weiss jetzt was kein Engel weiss