Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1998 20:29:38 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: mike@smith.net.au (Mike Smith) Cc: tlambert@primenet.com, mike@smith.net.au, Nicolas.Souchu@prism.uvsq.fr, chuckr@glue.umd.edu, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: C and static initialization with unions Message-ID: <199808072029.NAA25160@usr02.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <199808071324.GAA00589@antipodes.cdrom.com> from "Mike Smith" at Aug 7, 98 06:24:56 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > Actually, we largely do separate into compilation units. See all those > > > files ending in '.s' and '.S'? > > > > I just grepp'ed for "asm(.*)" and piped to wc -l. The result was a > > non-zero count. > > "largely" is a relative, not absolute, expression. Mock me not for the > sins of others, especially where said sins are in your eyes alone. Not being able to compile FreeBSD with TenDRA is a sin. The problem here is that "largely" is just as uncompilable as "not at all". > > > > I also know that FreeBSD uses ANSI constructs, which make the > > > > code non-portable to older compilers, such as those you would > > > > have on machines running older OS's that you want to upgrade > > > > to running FreeBSD via a port. > > > > > > Seeing as nobody actually seems to want this, it's obviously not of > > > much interest. > > > > I would dearly love this. Say "nobody who counts", please... > > You count by doing something about it. I have zero control over this policy decision which was opposed by me at the time it was being made. Unless you are suggesting that you are willing to commit __P() based prototype wrapping patches if I provide them? I also have patches to cdefs.h that wrapper ANSI vs. non-ANSI vararg declarations. I use them to compile FreeBSD code using Aztec C, which is the only C compiler to get the sizeof(int) right on the 16 bit address bus Motorolla 68000. PS: If FreeBSD is going to continue to use antique compiler technology, could it at least use classic antique compiler technology instead of Edsel (gcc 2.7.2) compiler technology? The old GCC we used back on FreeBSD 1.1.x was about three times faster than what we have now, and what we have now is incapable of compiling a large amount of new code. If you are going to be unable to compile new code, at least you should be unable to compile it quickly... 8-P. ;-). Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199808072029.NAA25160>