Message-Id: <200006011951.WAA08381@mailgw1.netvision.net.il> Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 22:49:52 +0200 X-Mailer: Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.1.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.5b From: "Eli Zaretskii" To: "AndrewJ" CC: djgpp AT delorie DOT com In-reply-to: <6ZxZ4.135284$55.2868598@news2.rdc1.on.home.com> (luminous-is AT home DOT com) Subject: Re: Internal compiler error References: <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> 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 Precedence: bulk > From: "AndrewJ" > Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp > Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 18:30:26 GMT > > I can understand the point of wanting to avoid any possible legal > dispute, but after the years upon years of success that the FSF has > had with their software without said legal problems, why don't they > devote a bit of their development time to making the tools both good > *and* efficient. 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. 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. > > Don't forget that Watcom (and others) are single-platform compilers, > > while GCC is highly portable. > > Watcom > host platforms -> DOS, Windows 3/9x/NT, QNX > target platforms -> DOS16 (MZ, COM), DOS32 (various extender technologies), > Win16/32/NT (executable, DLL, console, gui), Novell NLM, OS/2 (executable, DLL, > presentation manager), ADS (autocad development system), QNX (16, 32), > Penpoint (?). 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).