Messages in this thread |  | | Date | 05 Nov 2000 15:03:00 +0200 | From | (Kai Henningsen) | Subject | Re: non-gcc linux? (was Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10?) |
| |
meissner@spectacle-pond.org (Michael Meissner) wrote on 04.11.00 in <20001104222835.A27549@munchkin.spectacle-pond.org>:
> On Sat, Nov 04, 2000 at 02:24:00PM +0200, Kai Henningsen wrote: > > ak@suse.de (Andi Kleen) wrote on 02.11.00 in > > <20001102212124.A15054@gruyere.muc.suse.de>: > > > > > again with a different syntax than gcc [I guess it would have been too > > > easy to just use the gcc syntax] > > > > One of the big problems in C99 was that there was nobody on the committee > > who really understood gcc well, so the committee had problems using gcc > > solutions given that nobody would be able to really describe them. > > Or the GCC syntax was too limited to do all of what the committee wanted.
Well, what I wrote was a paraphrase from what committee members said in comp.std.c.
> > And the reason no such expert was there was that the FSF didn't send > > anyone, because they seem to think standards tend to ignore what they want > > to do. > > Actually, RMS had quite a lot of influence on the original standard, even > though he didn't attend the meetings. His replies to the public comment > period were fairly long and real insightful. Even if some of his issues > were voted down, they were discussed over quite a few meetings.
And what I wrote here was another paraphrase - from memory - of what a gcc guy said on the same group.
Deja will show the context, in case that's not beyond its current event horizon.
MfG Kai - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |