Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!osu-cis!att!ihnp4!ihlpf!nevin1 From: nevin1@ihlpf.ATT.COM (00704a-Liber) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: But what about kernel printfs? Message-ID: <4659@ihlpf.ATT.COM> Date: 6 May 88 00:43:21 GMT References: <12360@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> Reply-To: nevin1@ihlpf.UUCP (00704a-Liber,N.J.) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Naperville, Illinois Lines: 16 Keywords: printf,UNIX,kernel In article <12360@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> lvc@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Lawrence V. Cipriani) writes: >Even if one argues that an implementation of the UNIX >kernel is not portable to other machines it should be >at least portable to other compilers for the same cpu. Unfortunately, the implementation of the kernal (or is it kernel? :-)) is not only CPU dependent but very machine-dependent. I agree that an implementation of the kernal should be written to avoid as many of these dependencies as possible, but the dependencies on all of the supporting hardware is still there. For example: I would NOT expect A/UX to run on any 680x0 machine except the Mac-II (and its' decendents). -- _ __ NEVIN J. LIBER ..!ihnp4!ihlpf!nevin1 (312) 510-6194 ' ) ) "The secret compartment of my ring I fill / / _ , __o ____ with an Underdog super-energy pill." / (_