Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!hbetel
From: hbetel@watserv1.waterloo.edu (Heather)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: Minix needs a C compiler with source
Message-ID: <1193@watserv1.waterloo.edu>
Date: 23 Feb 90 00:44:06 GMT
References: <11550@nigel.udel.EDU>
Reply-To: rbetel@watcsc.waterloo.edu (Richard)
Distribution: world
Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 19

In article <11550@nigel.udel.EDU> ZZASSGL%cms.manchester-computing-centre.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk writes:
>
> 
>Prehaps a first step would be to port one of the many Small C
>compilers onto Minix. OK, you would not be able to compile Minix but
>at least it gives everyone a base to work from.

 The problem with that is that it seems to me that one of the worst parts of
a compiler is its lexical box, and that is the fundamental difference between
an ANSI C and a small C compiler.  This is a pretty messy part to change. It
tends to involve very large and complex finite state machines. (read "not nice
to change, esp. when you didn't write it in the first place") The difference in
code generators should be fairly minor, so by porting a small-C we have 
not won much.
 The other point in my mind may be closeminded, but I think that if you can't
make a compiler of your own, then you probably can't do too good a job of 
heavily modifying someone elses. Then again, I can see how one might say the
same of operating systems...