Xref: utzoo comp.arch:6914 comp.lang.misc:2063
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!nrl-cmf!ukma!rutgers!bpa!cbmvax!vu-vlsi!devon!shockeye!hermit
From: hermit@shockeye.UUCP (Mark Buda)
Newsgroups: comp.arch,comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Software Distribution
Message-ID: <240@shockeye.UUCP>
Date: 26 Oct 88 18:50:37 GMT
References: <1988Sep29.192410.246@utzoo.uucp> <997@esunix.UUCP> <1988Oct11.162611.25330@utzoo.uucp> <1988Oct13.202604.22464@ateng.ateng.com> <222@shockeye.UUCP> <17536@gatech.edu>
Reply-To: hermit@shockeye.UUCP (Bourne-again Superuser)
Organization: Competitive Computer Systems, Lancaster PA
Lines: 41

In article <17536@gatech.edu> ken@gatech.UUCP (Ken Seefried iii) writes:
#In article <222@shockeye.UUCP> hermit@shockeye.UUCP (Mark Buda) writes:
#>|Just a confirmation and a testimonial here.  C News Alpha runs just fine
#>|on a '286, thanks much to Messrs. Spencer and Collyer.
#>
#>GNU CC, however, doesn't. I expected more from them... sniff...
#>-- 
#
#I'll be kind and simply call this kind of talk silly.  The 80286 is an
#amazingly stupid design.

I agree wholeheartedly. The only semi-reasonable processor in the family is
the 80386, and that's pretty bad too.

#the GNU group made some assumptions (most of them pretty reasonable)
#when the built gcc and its ilk.  One of the biggies was 32-bits implemented
#in a semi-reasonable way.  The 80286 is niether 32-bits nor reasonably
#implemented. Since the target audience for 'gcc' was 680x0, 32x32, etc.
#based, and the rest of the world is moving that direction, and they wanted
#to produce a high quality compiler, these requirments make a whole lot of
#sense.

I think the problem is that I didn't make something clear in my original
posting. I don't want to compile *for* the 286. I want to compile for a
386, on a 386, but the compilers I have only understand 8086/286, and I'm
damned if I'm going to spend hundreds of dollars for a compiler I'll only
use once.

#I cannot believe the unmitigated gall of some people ( 'I expected
#more...' ).

The only thing I object to in GNU CC is the attitude that you can put a
pointer in an int or pass '0' for a null pointer where the portable thing
is '(char *)0' or NULL.

#Moral: if you want to run real software, get real hardware...
#
#Oh, and please don't whine that its all that you can afford.

It's not mine.

I'll keep my mouth shut from now on.