From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Given Subject: Re: Future of ELKS Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 13:12:15 +0100 Sender: linux-8086-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <40AF439F.5030206@cowlark.com> References: <1084985870.3062.23.camel@talena.hsol.net> <40AD4286.1090801@cowlark.com> <20040521132425.GP24490@duckman.distro.conectiva> <200405211730.45239.dg@cowlark.com> <40AE357B.9090002@eridani.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <40AE357B.9090002@eridani.co.uk> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: linux-8086@vger.kernel.org Michael McConnell wrote: [...] > Minix actually uses the Amsterdam Compiler Kit, and is invoked as 'cc'. So it does --- I could have sworn it used bcc! Having managed to track down a copy of the ACK (http://www.cs.vu.nl/vakgroepen/cs/ack.html), I notice that it actually seems to be a really quite sophisticated cross-platform cross-language compiler suite. Like a gcc-light. It supports generating code for the PDP-11, VAX, 68000, SPARC, 8080, 8086, 80386, Z80, Z8000 and the NS16032. It understands Modula-2, K&R C, Fortran, Pascal, Basic, Occam, and --- get this --- *ANSI C*. I haven't got it working yet, but has anyone used its ANSI C mode? How well does it work? Would this be suitable for a self-hosted ANSI C compiler for the 8086? A brief glance at the license would seem to indicate it's OSI compatible, but IANAL. (The other thing I'm wondering about --- since the ACK has been around for years, and was well-known back in the early days of ELKS, why did ELKS standardise on bcc rather than the ACK?) -- dg@cowlark.com --- http://www.cowlark.com My other account has a real signature.