Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ncar!ames!haven!mimsy!nmrdc1!minixug!uwalt!waltje
From: waltje@uwalt.nl.mugnet.org (Fred 'The Rebel' van Kempen)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: PC Minix CC
Message-ID: <91030215547@uwalt.nl.mugnet.org>
Date: 2 Mar 91 22:02:12 GMT
References: <45818@nigel.ee.udel.edu>
Organization: MicroWalt Corporation, for MINIX Software Development
Lines: 21

In article <45818@nigel.ee.udel.edu>, HBO043%DJUKFA11.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu (Christoph van Wuellen) wrote:
> as to 'use only software where you have the source ready':
> 
> I posted an 68000 C compiler a year ago, and the actual version even
> contains a i386 compiler.
Yes, we know... :-)

> Except for a handful of guys (which I should call 'fan club') who use
> my compilers all days, I receive little response. Most people
> continue using the ACK compilers despite their weakness (the 68000 ACK
> compiler does not contain many bugs -- but it is slow).
Yes, because (as far as I know) c386 canot generate code for the 8086.
So, people HAVE to resort to either BCC or ACK....
BCC is a good compiler (hey, it's fast!), with reasonably few bugs.
I personally think it should have an EXTERNAL preprocessor, and possibly
a code optimizer, but that's future music I guess.

So, maybe we can convice Christhoph to write a 8086- code generator for
his compiler?

Fred.