From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) In-Reply-To: <20071114165505.GA7883@sigint.cs.purdue.edu> References: <3765BCC5-FB7A-4BD6-BC88-5AA8A146E4A5@orthanc.ca> <20071114165505.GA7883@sigint.cs.purdue.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <54705662-CE14-4908-9A56-157CC36FE652@mac.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Pietro Gagliardi Subject: Re: [9fans] Fortran Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 14:45:58 -0500 To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Topicbox-Message-UUID: fa940888-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 I have nothing against gcc. I have everything against the GPL. I have no idea of Solaris' history, though. On Nov 14, 2007, at 11:55 AM, plan9@sigint.cs.purdue.edu wrote: > On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 07:52:55PM -0500, erik quanstrom wrote: >> wow! if they'd never taken the c compiler out of solaris, >> do you think gcc would have gotten where it did? > > (way OT at this point...) > > Probably. Face it, Sun's bundled cc was only there to relink the > kernel > after diddling ("tuning") its constants. Optimization was not its > strong > suit. > > We were already using gcc in preference to cc long before Solaris 2.0, > especially on other bloatware like X. The only thing cc was good for > by then was bootstrapping gcc. > > Man, you've gotten me all weepy for gcc 1.x. How sick is that?