From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Wed,  7 Jun 2006 16:44:34 -0400
From: William Josephson <jkw@eecs.harvard.edu>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] gcc on plan9
Message-ID: <20060607204434.GA28396@mero.morphisms.net>
References: <200606071058.35174.corey_s@qwest.net>
	<20060607182441.GF28313@submarine> <44871FF4.2090301@lanl.gov>
	<20060607185532.GA27660@mero.morphisms.net>
	<4487332B.7060407@lanl.gov>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4487332B.7060407@lanl.gov>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 5d031ae2-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 02:12:27PM -0600, Ronald G Minnich wrote:
> But, in many ways, plan 9 is an ideal kernel for HPC. It's just that the 
> out-of-kernel picture is not great, since we lack gcc or gcc-compatible 
> compilers.

The gcc C extensions are much more tractable than C++,
hence the question.