From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by neteng.engr.sgi.com (950413.SGI.8.6.12/960327.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id PAA02388; Tue, 23 Apr 1996 15:27:46 -0700 Return-Path: Received: by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (950511.SGI.8.6.12.PATCH526/911001.SGI) for linux-list id PAA09787; Tue, 23 Apr 1996 15:27:40 -0700 Received: from yon.engr.sgi.com by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com via ESMTP (950511.SGI.8.6.12.PATCH526/911001.SGI) id PAA09782; Tue, 23 Apr 1996 15:27:39 -0700 Received: by yon.engr.sgi.com (950413.SGI.8.6.12/940406.SGI.AUTO) id PAA00323; Tue, 23 Apr 1996 15:27:36 -0700 From: ariel@yon.engr.sgi.com (Ariel Faigon) Message-Id: <199604232227.PAA00323@yon.engr.sgi.com> Subject: Re: What target (was David ...) To: mikemac@titian.engr.sgi.com (Mike McDonald) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 15:27:36 -0700 (PDT) Cc: ariel@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com, linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com In-Reply-To: <199604232054.NAA01434@titian> from "Mike McDonald" at Apr 23, 96 01:54:29 pm Reply-To: ariel@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc. X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24 ME5a] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com Precedence: bulk >Mike dijo: >>yo dijo: >> >>P.S. >>gcc doesn't have support for 64 bit MIPS 27 ISA, I guess, but >>nobody is stopping us from using our compilers (as well as gcc >>at our convenience). > > I strongly believe that using our compilers would be a "bad" thing >for the initial port. Requiring someone to buy IDO inorder to compile >a free OS seems like the "wrong" thing to me. Now, if we (SGI) decide >to ship a Linux version, then yes, using our compilers is OK. Let's >just make sure that the port is dependant on our compilers in any way >at this point. (I doubt that's what you were suggesting. I just want >to make it clear before we get started.) > > Bob and I are working separately on making our compilers (actually only the C one, not Ada :-) be bundled with Irix (and possibly licence enabled for a nominal fee, which can be done automatically without human intervention -- surprisingly this may increase revenues because the cost of handling goes to zero and the potential upside due to lowering barriers is large). I think we have a very good chance of acheiving this as soon as our upcoming big software release. Also, I agree, we should make sure that whatever we do is buildable by gcc. And we should also be paying Cygnus to do a real supported full port (including ld), but this is harder to achieve (need $$$ from management) at this point. However, after we have Linux and it takes off, everything related to free software would be possible :-) -- Peace, Ariel From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: From: ariel@yon.engr.sgi.com (Ariel Faigon) Message-ID: <199604232227.PAA00323@yon.engr.sgi.com> Subject: Re: What target (was David ...) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 15:27:36 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <199604232054.NAA01434@titian> from "Mike McDonald" at Apr 23, 96 01:54:29 pm Reply-To: ariel@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com To: Mike McDonald Cc: ariel@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com, linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com Message-ID: <19960423222736.gLJQFDHMcgrpKc0aRRhryx8XRzU01SM7DrzN0hKwIE4@z> >Mike dijo: >>yo dijo: >> >>P.S. >>gcc doesn't have support for 64 bit MIPS 27 ISA, I guess, but >>nobody is stopping us from using our compilers (as well as gcc >>at our convenience). > > I strongly believe that using our compilers would be a "bad" thing >for the initial port. Requiring someone to buy IDO inorder to compile >a free OS seems like the "wrong" thing to me. Now, if we (SGI) decide >to ship a Linux version, then yes, using our compilers is OK. Let's >just make sure that the port is dependant on our compilers in any way >at this point. (I doubt that's what you were suggesting. I just want >to make it clear before we get started.) > > Bob and I are working separately on making our compilers (actually only the C one, not Ada :-) be bundled with Irix (and possibly licence enabled for a nominal fee, which can be done automatically without human intervention -- surprisingly this may increase revenues because the cost of handling goes to zero and the potential upside due to lowering barriers is large). I think we have a very good chance of acheiving this as soon as our upcoming big software release. Also, I agree, we should make sure that whatever we do is buildable by gcc. And we should also be paying Cygnus to do a real supported full port (including ld), but this is harder to achieve (need $$$ from management) at this point. However, after we have Linux and it takes off, everything related to free software would be possible :-) -- Peace, Ariel