From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <4890A6B0.4070901@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 11:36:48 -0600 From: don bailey User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080421) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> References: <488B6EE7.3080100@mtu.edu> <1217421120.5036.34.camel@goose.sun.com> <13426df10807300810s4d854612ib7597a9463f7f02f@mail.gmail.com> <13426df10807300840lb13f30aw18b6f8def086ef31@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <13426df10807300840lb13f30aw18b6f8def086ef31@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [9fans] Plan 9 on Blue Gene Topicbox-Message-UUID: f6a0bd56-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 > 1. rewrite apps in plan 9 c. The Plan 9 C compiler is fine for what we > do on Plan 9. For scientific apps, it's not that great a compiler. The > IBM compilers know all the tricks. The effort to get Plan 9 C up to > the standards of XLC is mind-boggling. And XLF? We're not going to > write a Fortran compiler from scratch. Can you elaborate here? What tricks can the IBM compilers use that the Plan 9 ones can't? Are we talking optimization? What is XLC and where can I find more information on the standard? D