Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site mips.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!cmcl2!philabs!prls!amdimage!amdcad!decwrl!Glacier!mips!mash
From: mash@mips.UUCP (John Mashey)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: AT&T 7300 C compiler/ variable name lengths (REAL TRUTH)
Message-ID: <125@mips.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 19-Apr-85 13:40:28 EST
Article-I.D.: mips.125
Posted: Fri Apr 19 13:40:28 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 22-Apr-85 02:21:10 EST
References: <9726@brl-tgr.ARPA> <585@ahuta.UUCP> <1252@eagle.UUCP> <1113@cmcl2.UUCP>
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Mountain View, CA
Lines: 16

I've noticed that there has been a fair amount of philosophical speculation
on the topic of why the 7300 doesn't use variable names.  The real truth is
that it has absolutely NOTHING to do with philosophical issues, but with
timing of releases and schedule issues.  The sequence is as follows:
1) Convergent's Data Systems Division had been using a tuned-up version of
the MIT cc and assmbler. The A-Team (7300 division) started work with this.
For various reasons, all compiler/assembler support was kept in DSD,
and thus was often tied to DSD release schedules.
2) Last year, we got the 68K SGS (using pcc2) when it became available;
we converted to pcc2 fairly quickly, but there was enough other work to
do (converting assembler code, reimplementing some optimization in pcc2
that we'd done before for pcc1 and adding more, etc) that we didn't turn
on flexnames soon enough for it to get into the 7300 without disrupting
release schedules.
3) I certainly can't speak for the A-Team, but I'd be surprised if
they didn't use flexnames as they become available.