From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, MSGID_RANDY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,f495c7652c09dd8c X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Robert Dewar Subject: Re: Does this model work ? Date: 1999/05/17 Message-ID: <7ho488$nmc$1@nnrp1.deja.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 478679122 References: <373e38e2.31311363@news2.ibm.net> <7hhj6q$cjn$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <7hmda1$khp$1@nnrp1.deja.com> X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x41.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 205.232.38.14 Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. X-Article-Creation-Date: Mon May 17 04:00:08 1999 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.04 [en] (OS/2; I) Date: 1999-05-17T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article , Andi Kleen wrote: > Robert Dewar writes: > Although many would argue that GCC is more writen in some kind > of Lisp in C, than C @) I never heard anyone make such a peculiar claim! > > For example the representation of RTL, the internal code > representation, seems to near completely ignore even the weak > static typing C mandates (this > is shown by the thousands of warnings during a gcc bootstrap). This is a significant misunderstanding > Given that it is surprising that gcc is as portable as it is. If it surprises you, perhaps there is something you are missing! > I would definitely not see it as an example of a typical C > program! All of it is very un-C-ish. A most peculiar claim. I suppose anyone can set up their own standards for what they consider C-ish, but to my mind the code in GCC seems to be quite conventional traditional C to me, and I have never heard anyone claim otherwise. --== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==-- ---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---