Date:	Wed, 31 May 2000 21:06:09 +0600 (LKT)
From:	Kalum Somaratna aka Grendel <kalum AT lintux DOT cx>
X-Sender:	kalum AT roadrunner DOT grendel DOT net
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: Internal compiler error
In-Reply-To:	<8h2rnd$i7n$1@nets3.rz.RWTH-Aachen.DE>
Message-ID:	<Pine.LNX.4.21.0005312058020.1241-100000@roadrunner.grendel.net>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On 31 May 2000, Hans-Bernhard Broeker wrote:
> 
> Windows 9x often still seems to work, on such a machine with flakey
> memory. Draw your own conclusion about what that tells about the inner
> quality of that OS...

Although I am not a fan of windoze Hans, I would like to ask "why
shouldn't it not work"...If only programs which are memory hogs (like gcc)
and use the CPU at 100% are supposed to crash...then the fact that windoze
doesn't crash on the same machine means that windoze code is very
efficient and less resource consuming, doesn't it...

So the fact that windoze or anyother program *doesn't* crash on a machine
with flaky memory is due to low quality is illogical to say the
least..infact I see no association whatsoever...

Infact it shows the opposite...how badly gcc is desgined...from my
experience other compilers..(Watcom, borland) require *far less* resources
than gcc to compile programs..

frex: Watcom v 10.x can compile almost any program with as little as 4MB
of memory....while it would take almost that amount to load GCC
completely in to memory..

Grendel

Hi, I'm a signature virus. plz set me as your signature and help me spread
:)

- Raw text -