From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <5d375e920711141204w7f6c7ebbvea90470e4e542e92@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 21:04:00 +0100
From: Uriel <uriel99@gmail.com>
To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] Fortran
In-Reply-To: <54705662-CE14-4908-9A56-157CC36FE652@mac.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <3765BCC5-FB7A-4BD6-BC88-5AA8A146E4A5@orthanc.ca>
	<f1afb8b1dd76cb29b554d531e70ac34e@quanstro.net>
	<20071114165505.GA7883@sigint.cs.purdue.edu>
	<54705662-CE14-4908-9A56-157CC36FE652@mac.com>
Topicbox-Message-UUID: faa7a01e-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Nov 14, 2007 8:45 PM, Pietro Gagliardi <pietro10@mac.com> wrote:
> I have nothing against gcc. I have everything against the GPL. I have
> no idea of Solaris' history, though.

Then what are you doing in this mailing list?

uriel

> 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?
>
>