Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!polyslo!jdudeck
From: jdudeck@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (John R. Dudeck)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: C compilers and large code/data...
Message-ID: <25e4a57d.2896@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU>
Date: 23 Feb 90 02:52:45 GMT
References: <1609@crash.cts.com>
Reply-To: jdudeck@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (John R. Dudeck)
Organization: Cal Poly State University -- San Luis Obispo
Lines: 18


The question that I keep thinking is, since it is so much work to develop
a compiler, and since someone a few months ago posted a whole pile of stuff
to help with cross compiling on Turbo C, why aren't more people going
this route?

I realize it would be pretty inconvenient if the only way to do c programming
was to go to MS DOS, and then boot back into Minix.  But for the purposes
of compiling Minix itself, wouldn't it be advantageous to get the better
code generated by Microsoft C or Turbo C?

I have to admit that I have not yet done anything with Minix except insert
the floppies and watch it boot.  But I have been collecting the 1.5.0-3
upgrades, and have been following the newsgroup with interest ever since
taking an OS course where we studied the code closely...

So what are the problems with cross compiling?  Do the problems go beyond
the question of convenience? 

-- 
John Dudeck                           "You want to read the code closely..." 
jdudeck@Polyslo.CalPoly.Edu             -- C. Staley, in OS course, teaching 
ESL: 62013975 Tel: 805-545-9549          Tanenbaum's MINIX operating system.