From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.6 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,HTML_MESSAGE,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (minnie.tuhs.org [IPv6:2600:3c01:e000:146::1]) by inbox.vuxu.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E55422162A for ; Fri, 8 Mar 2024 15:16:52 +0100 (CET) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 272C343251; Sat, 9 Mar 2024 00:16:44 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-ed1-x52a.google.com (mail-ed1-x52a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::52a]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A4374431E0 for ; Sat, 9 Mar 2024 00:16:39 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-ed1-x52a.google.com with SMTP id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-55a179f5fa1so2995451a12.0 for ; Fri, 08 Mar 2024 06:16:39 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bsdimp-com.20230601.gappssmtp.com; s=20230601; t=1709907398; x=1710512198; darn=tuhs.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=DiVFbWCfPaigPcSV03EQQrHbfZ/NRgWjkHJ2EkY9V6o=; b=BVjM3QGJW0CoBoXOvdNIW5nBncVkTLNbxyaTiFuona0/amIxT5Hrbiw/w+2fsCV6qX 3gFbJZ/+HQR2zNcMAc27lFM+ZPCeWBnAToL+oZHVGTTMk0hK6eaweYu9Xad5YfoA4FF/ DUdr0MhDKOTBKyaHF/P88FAZejhKSQzUwTIoZ82JWt4z7JLO4pMvuQUo567pWqZmLbKC DsRsRoH4vST+og682YXrBw1pkP4Lxo9jJB+pZ418+bovM4ZSPRSWVJda7/vhHjTWweHr YVsBmsWhYNJhs1leCUKudOqvOob95iLGGjnv8Bj6VXKUVsDSj0wyK0+MT0LRQt5OIHOW xU/w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1709907398; x=1710512198; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=DiVFbWCfPaigPcSV03EQQrHbfZ/NRgWjkHJ2EkY9V6o=; b=KqMBxSqCXZ+w315tep5PVx51OI5usYLPNtv7/rmmWh4pHW++Lipx++yTFHYREF5YY4 H3jXySZMPyjrwA7f85rEKQUgveRtz7xzmat7OUvFpfFpzY8BbP0mlGYtQszbLSYY4krJ dclC5FQ+tA5gwLAoLYrYEvLQyvas2Ft5Gvsf43zVPOAJKyQ2vFCgWBfJ/8lzP2V3NZ2P sLtbQU1hegidvDpCQwwpHHULD7/H58n65GYzAaCpXEs3KdGk0vS+SEIaqmfaAVo+ne6g vCE2G04bZa2jT1pTyHVB931ai3pi5sU7MCh763TGNFULw6e9VUX7D4a5Po/CYJzEKtxF gjYQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzkvcgJE5je2HpxPaWcBHHPVZK62PFtt4+7wd7mRkX5SUyDPMtq EBtzH94IjxHtyeXX2RDXZiQR0Qi0RdpH5YuquaHKdaAE0P4kyH01p+P+Cbj96JgYnbNUTuuaDgg qU1iCkbD3lCS8i4tuixT5SgHk6kkbnLJeEb7A5CnhiHtvS1L6iR0= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEBPMbAFXjXzpw5mCxKFREtGHziHpQql5bYDEyoXJkOqOv3MNG6h89UfZ0rkVa/N+tcnIISI43mYSY+BSJdv3s= X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:f8d6:b0:a45:2e21:c776 with SMTP id lh22-20020a170906f8d600b00a452e21c776mr10902471ejb.3.1709907397885; Fri, 08 Mar 2024 06:16:37 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Warner Losh Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2024 07:16:26 -0700 Message-ID: To: Henry Bent Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000000cde60061326d7e3" Message-ID-Hash: 7FBK644MHV4AAZEYS57PTFLVHFC3MUSJ X-Message-ID-Hash: 7FBK644MHV4AAZEYS57PTFLVHFC3MUSJ X-MailFrom: wlosh@bsdimp.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header CC: TUHS main list X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.6b1 Precedence: list Subject: [TUHS] Re: History of non-Bell C compilers? List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: --0000000000000cde60061326d7e3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Mar 8, 2024, 6:42=E2=80=AFAM Henry Bent wr= ote: > On Thu, 7 Mar 2024 at 18:14, Tom Lyon wrote: > >> For no good reason, I've been wondering about the early history of C >> compilers that were not derived from Ritchie, Johnson, and Snyder at Bel= l. >> Especially for x86. Anyone have tales? >> Were any of those compilers ever used to port UNIX? >> > > As a slightly separate addendum, I'm curious about the slightly later > history of compilers for commercial UNIX distributions. Were these deriv= ed > from the Bell/BSD sources or were they "clean room" approaches? I'm > thinking of SunPRO, IBM XL C, the MIPS compiler, DEC GEM, etc. > Almost positive SunPRO and XLc were rewrites. I base this on their unique pickiness on software I ported to them. I had to make several changes for each that Sun's old compiler, the VAX BSD 4.3 compiler and gcc 1.x didn't flag... The error messages also were radically different... and the generated code in the case of Sun was somewhat different... Warner > --0000000000000cde60061326d7e3 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Fri, Mar 8, 2024, 6:42=E2=80=AFAM Henry Bent <henry.r.bent@gmail.com> wrot= e:
On Thu, 7 Mar 2024 at 18:14, Tom Lyon <pugs78@gmail.com> wrote:
For no good reason, I've been wondering about th= e early history of C compilers that were not derived from Ritchie, Johnson,= and Snyder at Bell.=C2=A0 Especially for x86.=C2=A0 Anyone have tales?Were any of those compilers ever used to port UNIX?

As a slightly separate addendum, I'm curious abou= t the slightly later history of compilers for commercial UNIX distributions= .=C2=A0 Were these derived from the Bell/BSD sources or were they "cle= an room" approaches?=C2=A0 I'm thinking of SunPRO, IBM XL C, the M= IPS compiler, DEC GEM, etc.

Almost positive SunPRO and XLc wer= e rewrites. I base this on their unique pickiness on software I ported to t= hem. I had to make several changes for each that Sun's old compiler, th= e VAX BSD 4.3 compiler and gcc 1.x didn't flag... The error messages al= so were radically different... and the generated code in the case of Sun wa= s somewhat different...

= Warner
--0000000000000cde60061326d7e3--