From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Wed,  7 Mar 2007 12:50:42 +0100
From: Martin Neubauer <m.ne@gmx.net>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] interesting potential targets for plan 9 and/or inferno
Message-ID: <20070307115042.GA54500@shodan.homeunix.net>
References: <45EDE39F.8060006@proweb.co.uk>
	<474b349ac6f7a20920261a714df9b8ef@proxima.alt.za>
	<32a656c20703062152n6a9bb7b1qfefa9b7827e3a9af@mail.gmail.com>
	<13426df10703062202g29819385h5d4fe3db57b9867c@mail.gmail.com>
	<32a656c20703062216h18c65028lba8cc6d8ccde8bbc@mail.gmail.com>
	<13426df10703062242q3cdc421fnb45a5e6342b8b5ee@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <13426df10703062242q3cdc421fnb45a5e6342b8b5ee@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 1a42dfd4-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

* ron minnich (rminnich@gmail.com) wrote:
> The isses of Python and gcc are not simply academic. They're part of
> the DOE meal ticket.

I happen to have lost what respect was left for gcc a couple of weeks ago
when I tried to compile drawterm on a 64bit linux box. Gcc barfed on a
malformed typedef in stddef.h. It might be the right thing nowadays, but a
compiler not accepting a standard header (installed in a directory not only
specific to said compiler but also to the compiler version) certainly is a
bit gross.

To be fair, the problem probably was the result of the combination of a
64bit (intel) architecture, the organisation of that specific distro, and
the installed compiler, but I'm not sure it's even an excuse. (Testing,
anyone?)

So, while having a gcc port could be helpful for getting new users, the gcc
folks should get their act together, rather then churning out ever new
optimisation switches.

	Martin

P.S. The problem with drawterm was trivially fixed by commenting out the
offending line as none of the drawterm code was using it.