From:	"AndrewJ" <luminous-is AT home DOT com>
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
References:	<Pine DOT LNX DOT 4 DOT 21 DOT 0005312058020 DOT 1241-100000 AT roadrunner DOT grendel DOT net> <200005311635 DOT TAA23319 AT mailgw1 DOT netvision DOT net DOT il> <6ZxZ4.135284$55 DOT 2868598 AT news2 DOT rdc1 DOT on DOT home DOT com> <200006011951 DOT WAA08381 AT mailgw1 DOT netvision DOT net DOT il>
Subject:	Re: Internal compiler error
Lines:	39
X-Priority:	3
X-MSMail-Priority:	Normal
X-Newsreader:	Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600
X-MimeOLE:	Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600
Message-ID:	<qbh_4.151219$55.3131194@news2.rdc1.on.home.com>
Date:	Sun, 04 Jun 2000 00:14:14 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host:	24.42.120.18
X-Complaints-To:	abuse AT home DOT net
X-Trace:	news2.rdc1.on.home.com 960077654 24.42.120.18 (Sat, 03 Jun 2000 17:14:14 PDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date:	Sat, 03 Jun 2000 17:14:14 PDT
Organization:	@Home Network Canada
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

> If you really want to discuss this, there are appropriate forums for
> this (e.g., gnu.misc.discuss), where you can find people who know more
> about this.

Nah... I was just curious.  Besides, you seem to know the answer to just about
everything else. ;)

> One assumption that you make and that I'm not sure is true, is that
> the success you mention came so easily.  It could be that this success
> requires them to keep fighting every day.

Hmm... what I meant was that by now they've proven that the compiler is their
own work.  If they make it smaller and better now, who's going to care?  You
said they made it big so no one would think they'd been "plagiarised", by now
that has been proven.

> These are all x86-based.  GCC supports lots of non-Intel CPUs (in
> fact, it took Linux to get the GCC to respect x86 as an important
> platform).

- did you read the paragraph after it? -

It doesn't match GCC in scope of host platforms or target architechtures, but
no compiler I know of can target as many x86's operating systems as Watcom all
in one package (that excludes the myriad number of ports of GCC from this
comparison).

- meaning out of the box, one compiler supports all what I listed before -

I don't want to start arguing about Watcom vs. GCC, but I will defend it when I
feel the need arises.  Watcom's not such a bad product (and it's originally
Canadian, like me ;)  So it's more a matter of pride.

- OTO, this is all moot, off-topic, and irrelevent. -

Andrew J

- Raw text -