From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <509071940705030634n53a0911ft38f58da924e5cc5@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 09:34:20 -0400 From: "Anthony Sorace" To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] speaking of kenc In-Reply-To: <32d987d50705022111s70dacb4i199ad059cdb610@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <30901.1178155962@d.0x1.org> <4A3A5027-DC92-4116-A437-2E99B79255CD@telus.net> <32d987d50705022111s70dacb4i199ad059cdb610@mail.gmail.com> Topicbox-Message-UUID: 5716b5b6-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On 5/3/07, Federico Benavento wrote: > "You are not using a supported compiler. We do not have the time to make sure > everything works with compilers other than the ones we use. Use either the > same compiler as we do, or use --disable-gcc-check but DO *NOT* REPORT BUGS > unless you can reproduce them after recompiling with a 2.95.x or 3/4.x version!" note the best part here: the implicit assumption that there is only one compiler. by "same compiler as we [use]", they mean the same *version*. using an actual different compiler (we needn't even get as "exotic" as kencc; lcc will do nicely) is so far outside the realm of possibility they don't even need to tell you not to do it.