lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Nov]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:45    [W:0.083 / U:0.208 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site