From owner-freebsd-current Tue Mar 4 23: 1:28 2003 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CAC937B401 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 23:01:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from dragon.nuxi.com (trang.nuxi.com [66.93.134.19]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7F0343F75 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 23:01:26 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from obrien@NUXI.com) Received: from dragon.nuxi.com (smmsp@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dragon.nuxi.com (8.12.7/8.12.7) with ESMTP id h2571Qdh093177; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 23:01:26 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from obrien@dragon.nuxi.com) Received: (from obrien@localhost) by dragon.nuxi.com (8.12.7/8.12.7/Submit) id h2571PgD093176; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 23:01:25 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 23:01:25 -0800 From: "David O'Brien" To: Jens Rehsack Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: PATCH: type errors in src-tree Message-ID: <20030305070125.GC92645@dragon.nuxi.com> Reply-To: current@FreeBSD.ORG Mail-Followup-To: David O'Brien , Jens Rehsack , current@FreeBSD.ORG References: <200303022056.h22KuDIg055497@grimreaper.grondar.org> <3E628ED4.9030203@liwing.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3E628ED4.9030203@liwing.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 5.0-CURRENT Organization: The NUXI BSD Group X-Pgp-Rsa-Fingerprint: B7 4D 3E E9 11 39 5F A3 90 76 5D 69 58 D9 98 7A X-Pgp-Rsa-Keyid: 1024/34F9F9D5 Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 12:08:04AM +0100, Jens Rehsack wrote: > Now, that OpenWatcom is released, the FreeBSd port of it should follow. > And maybe someone will try to compile the kernel and world with it. I hate to be the skeptic, but looking at OpenWatcom 1.0, it only produces dos and win32 binaries. It will be a *long* time until it targets Unix correctly. > If that would work, this would be great, because the watcom compiler > generates much better code than gcc does, even than gcc -O3 (and all > known optimizations on). Rather than just repeat some old wife's tale; can anyone produce a real analysis backing this statement up? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message