Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 19:05:55 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 19:05:45 -0500 Received: from hq.fsmlabs.com ([209.155.42.197]:36621 "EHLO hq.fsmlabs.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 19:05:33 -0500 Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 17:04:34 -0700 From: yodaiken@fsmlabs.com To: Tim Riker Cc: Jes Sorensen , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: non-gcc linux? (was Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10?) Message-ID: <20001107170433.A12578@hq.fsmlabs.com> In-Reply-To: <3A01BB7D.B084B66@Rikers.org> <3A086BAB.89A588EB@Rikers.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <3A086BAB.89A588EB@Rikers.org>; from Tim Riker on Tue, Nov 07, 2000 at 01:52:59PM -0700 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Nov 07, 2000 at 01:52:59PM -0700, Tim Riker wrote: > As was mentioned before, there are nonproprietary compilers around as > well that might be good choices. My point is that the ANSI C steering > committee is probably a more balanced forum to determine C syntax than > the gcc team. We should adopt c99 syntax where feasible, for example. I > am not asking anyone to use a proprietary compiler of they do not choose > to do so. The two problems with your "point" are (1) there is no evidence in its favor and (2) you have an alternative reason for making such an argument and by not either making it explicit or explicitly denying it, you appear to be simply trying to disguise a marketing strategy in a pseudo-technical argument. -- --------------------------------------------------------- Victor Yodaiken Finite State Machine Labs: The RTLinux Company. www.fsmlabs.com www.rtlinux.com - 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/