Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id <S129413AbQKEOky>; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 09:40:54 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S129121AbQKEOko>; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 09:40:44 -0500
Received: from mailout04.sul.t-online.com ([194.25.134.18]:35088 "EHLO
	mailout04.sul.t-online.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id <S129458AbQKEOkf>; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 09:40:35 -0500
Date: 05 Nov 2000 15:03:00 +0200
From: kaih@khms.westfalen.de (Kai Henningsen)
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Message-ID: <7pHdSsmmw-B@khms.westfalen.de>
In-Reply-To: <20001104222835.A27549@munchkin.spectacle-pond.org>
Subject: Re: non-gcc linux? (was Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10?)
X-Mailer: CrossPoint v3.12d.kh5 R/C435
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Organization: Organisation? Me?! Are you kidding?
In-Reply-To: <7pChupdXw-B@khms.westfalen.de> <3A01B8BB.A17FE178@Rikers.org> <20001102212124.A15054@gruyere.muc.suse.de> <7pChupdXw-B@khms.westfalen.de> <20001104222835.A27549@munchkin.spectacle-pond.org>
X-No-Junk-Mail: I do not want to get *any* junk mail.
Comment: Unsolicited commercial mail will incur an US$100 handling fee per received mail.
X-Fix-Your-Modem: +++ATS2=255&WO1
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

meissner@spectacle-pond.org (Michael Meissner)  wrote on 04.11.00 in <20001104222835.A27549@munchkin.spectacle-pond.org>:

> On Sat, Nov 04, 2000 at 02:24:00PM +0200, Kai Henningsen wrote:
> > ak@suse.de (Andi Kleen)  wrote on 02.11.00 in
> > <20001102212124.A15054@gruyere.muc.suse.de>:
> >
> > > again with a different syntax than gcc [I guess it would have been too
> > > easy to just use the gcc syntax]
> >
> > One of the big problems in C99 was that there was nobody on the committee
> > who really understood gcc well, so the committee had problems using gcc
> > solutions given that nobody would be able to really describe them.
>
> Or the GCC syntax was too limited to do all of what the committee wanted.

Well, what I wrote was a paraphrase from what committee members said in  
comp.std.c.

> > And the reason no such expert was there was that the FSF didn't send
> > anyone, because they seem to think standards tend to ignore what they want
> > to do.
>
> Actually, RMS had quite a lot of influence on the original standard, even
> though he didn't attend the meetings.  His replies to the public comment
> period were fairly long and real insightful.  Even if some of his issues
> were voted down, they were discussed over quite a few meetings.

And what I wrote here was another paraphrase - from memory - of what a gcc  
guy said on the same group.

Deja will show the context, in case that's not beyond its current event  
horizon.

MfG Kai
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/