From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat Jun 10 10:58:02 1995 Return-Path: hackers-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id KAA18198 for hackers-outgoing; Sat, 10 Jun 1995 10:58:02 -0700 Received: from kithrup.com (kithrup.com [140.174.23.40]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id KAA18192 for ; Sat, 10 Jun 1995 10:58:00 -0700 Received: (from sef@localhost) by kithrup.com (8.6.8/8.6.6) id KAA06064; Sat, 10 Jun 1995 10:57:59 -0700 Date: Sat, 10 Jun 1995 10:57:59 -0700 From: Sean Eric Fagan Message-Id: <199506101757.KAA06064@kithrup.com> To: leisner@sdsp.mc.xerox.com, nate@trout.sri.mt.net Subject: Re: Slight flame from Linux user Cc: hackers@freebsd.org, terry@cs.weber.edu Sender: hackers-owner@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk >Check out: >http://www.CS.Princeton.EDU/software/lcc/ >for more info on lcc (it supports both sparcs and i386... *sigh* Nate knows about this, I know about this, most (if not all) of the freebsd core team knows about it. A simple reading of the license would show you that lcc is MORE restrictive than gcc. Yeah, it's smaller, and, yeah, it compiles faster. And, yeah, it generates worse code. And, yeah, it's got a lint version which would be useful -- but I won't touch it. Unless they've changed the license recently, which I suspect they haven't, you don't want to use lcc at all. In particular, Walnut Creek CD-ROM (or any other entity that sells FreeBSD, either as itself, or just on media) doesn't want to get into that legal mess. lcc is a *fine* instructional compiler, and you can go out and buy a copy of the LCC Book (something about "Compiler Design," I think). But don't think that it's a replacement for gcc. Sean.