From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: Internal compiler error
Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2000 20:11:26 +0200
Organization: NetVision Israel	
Lines: 38
Message-ID: <393A9BCE.2BE06764@is.elta.co.il>
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> <qbh_4.151219$55 DOT 3131194 AT news2 DOT rdc1 DOT on DOT home DOT com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ras1-p81.rvt.netvision.net.il
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: news.netvision.net.il 960138790 20398 62.0.172.83 (4 Jun 2000 17:13:10 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse AT netvision DOT net DOT il
NNTP-Posting-Date: 4 Jun 2000 17:13:10 GMT
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I)
X-Accept-Language: en,ru,hebrew
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

AndrewJ wrote:
> 
> 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.

You cannot ``prove'' this once and for all.  As GCC is developed, new code is
constantly added to it.  If this new code looks too similar to copyrighted
software...

> > 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? -

Of course, I did.

> 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).

Targeting many OSes for the same CPU is not the same as targeting lots of
different CPUs.  It's an entirely different game, which requires an entirely
different design.

> I don't want to start arguing about Watcom vs. GCC, but I will defend it when I
> feel the need arises.

I fail to see why do you think you need to defend it.  Nobody is attacking
Watcom here.

> Watcom's not such a bad product (and it's originally
> Canadian, like me ;)  So it's more a matter of pride.

This forum is not about national pride, it's about other issues.