From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Rant (was Re: Plan9 and Ada95?)
From: forsyth@caldo.demon.co.uk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="upas-pyufmrlvbqeohaojosaabvsnuv"
Message-Id: <20011110101113.B60CD19A78@mail.cse.psu.edu>
Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2001 10:15:58 +0000
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 1d6e1cbc-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--upas-pyufmrlvbqeohaojosaabvsnuv
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

so does lcc, if you're looking for something off Plan 9 that's small,
cleanly written, and portable.  you'll still need to sort out
the assembly and linking phases though.

there, you see: it needn't run on plan 9 for
some of us to like it, it must only be well done.


--upas-pyufmrlvbqeohaojosaabvsnuv
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Disposition: inline

Return-Path: <9fans-admin@cse.psu.edu>
Received: from punt-1.mail.demon.net by mailstore for forsyth@caldo.demon.co.uk
          id 1005344844:10:02966:1; Fri, 09 Nov 2001 22:27:24 GMT
Received: from psuvax1.cse.psu.edu ([130.203.4.6]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net
           id aa1119189; 9 Nov 2001 22:27 GMT
Received: from psuvax1.cse.psu.edu (psuvax1.cse.psu.edu [130.203.4.6])
	by mail.cse.psu.edu (CSE Mail Server) with ESMTP
	id BF98C19A69; Fri,  9 Nov 2001 17:27:09 -0500 (EST)
Delivered-To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Received: from plan9.cs.bell-labs.com (ampl.com [204.178.31.2])
	by mail.cse.psu.edu (CSE Mail Server) with SMTP id 9842219A60
	for <9fans@cse.psu.edu>; Fri,  9 Nov 2001 17:26:28 -0500 (EST)
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Rant (was Re: Plan9 and Ada95?)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <20011109222628.9842219A60@mail.cse.psu.edu>
Sender: 9fans-admin@cse.psu.edu
Errors-To: 9fans-admin@cse.psu.edu
X-BeenThere: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
List-Id: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans.cse.psu.edu>
List-Archive: <http://lists.cse.psu.edu/archives/9fans/>
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 17:26:24 -0500

> There's been a lot of noise about how GCC might be more ugly, or
> poorly constructed, or such.

Translation: some people here have opinions that differ from yours.

> I'm asking whether amidst all that noise
> anyone has bothered to see whether it actually performs its job better
> or worse.  It does seem to me to be an important question in
> evaluating tools which one is actually better at the principal job the
> tool is designed to perform.

GCC is painfully slow.  I really don't care if it produces an executable
that's 5% faster, if you're working in a compile-execute-debug-rewrite
cycle, you want that compile step to complete in a reasonable time.
Plan 9's compiler beats GCC hands down on this one.

--upas-pyufmrlvbqeohaojosaabvsnuv--