From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <444EFCCF.8040507@lanl.gov> Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 22:53:35 -0600 From: Ronald G Minnich User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7-1.1.fc4 (X11/20050929) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] impressive References: <3e1162e60604252157m50da62dardb98759d7c4152da@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <3e1162e60604252157m50da62dardb98759d7c4152da@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Topicbox-Message-UUID: 465efebe-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 David Leimbach wrote: > The main reason that intel and other C compilers implement gcc > extensions is because there is a lot of software that relies on them, > like the linux kernel for instance. Yes, the standard question asked here when a company comes in with a whiz-bang C compiler is 'can you build a bootable the linux kernel'. The initial answer is always "no". It in the usual case remains "no". For those companies that care (there are not many -- in fact there is only one I can think of) it takes several years before the answer is "yes". It's surprising how hard it is to write a "modern C compiler", as an infrequent contributor to this list once described gcc. That's life. ron