11–20 of 68 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, C++ wasn't used for gcc until 4.8 (released 2013). Source: https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.8/changes.html
For this reason, maintaining GCC 4.7 is one of long-term high-impact projects of Bootstrappable Builds project. https://bootstrappable.org/projects.html
> In late 1983, in an effort to bootstrap the GNU operating system, Richard Stallman asked Andrew S. Tanenbaum, the author of the Amsterdam Compiler Kit (also known as the Free University Compiler Kit) I see what you did there edit: Oh but actually Richard Stallman is careful to clarify: > Shortly before beginning the GNU project, I heard about the Free University Compiler Kit, also known as VUCK. (The Dutch word for…
> In late 1983, in an effort to bootstrap the GNU operating system, Richard Stallman asked Andrew S. Tanenbaum, the author of the Amsterdam Compiler Kit (also known as the Free University Compiler Kit) I see what you did there edit: Oh but actually Richard Stallman is careful to clarify: > Shortly before beginning the GNU project, I heard about the Free University Compiler Kit, also known as VUCK. (The Dutch word for…
The "free" in VUCK doesn't stand for free as in freedom, or even free as in beer. Free University is a weird translation of the name of a specific institution - the Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam. Tanenbaum was a professor there, giving classes on operating systems. So I'd say it should rather be called the VU Compiler Kit.
It isn’t a “weird translation” - “Free University” is a perfectly valid translation of Dutch “Vrije Universiteit”. You just have to understand the historical background, that the university was so named because it was free from control by State or Church, unlike other universities in the Netherlands at the time of its 19th century founding
I was curious what architectures were supported by the original GCC, if not x86. It seems the answer is vax and 68020: https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/History
So RMS started using it for his gnu project since nobody else cared. It was just using up power in a small machine room on the 3rd (or 7th — I can’t remember) floor of tech square.
Complete happenstance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The "free" in VUCK doesn't stand for free as in freedom, or even free as in beer. Free University is a weird translation of the name of a specific institution - the Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam. Tanenbaum was a professor there, giving classes on operating systems. So I'd say it should rather be called the VU Compiler Kit.
> The "free" in VUCK doesn't stand for free as in freedom, or even free as in beer. Free University is a weird translation of the name of a specific institution - the Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam. It isn’t a “weird translation” - “Free University” is a perfectly valid translation of Dutch “Vrije Universiteit”. You just have to understand the historical background, that the university was so named because it was fr…
> In late 1983, in an effort to bootstrap the GNU operating system, Richard Stallman asked Andrew S. Tanenbaum, the author of the Amsterdam Compiler Kit (also known as the Free University Compiler Kit) I see what you did there edit: Oh but actually Richard Stallman is careful to clarify: > Shortly before beginning the GNU project, I heard about the Free University Compiler Kit, also known as VUCK. (The Dutch word for…
The "free" in VUCK doesn't stand for free as in freedom, or even free as in beer. Free University is a weird translation of the name of a specific institution - the Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam. Tanenbaum was a professor there, giving classes on operating systems. So I'd say it should rather be called the VU Compiler Kit.
> When Tanenbaum advised him that the compiler was not free, and that only the university was free, Stallman decided to work on a different compiler.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For this reason, maintaining GCC 4.7 is one of long-term high-impact projects of Bootstrappable Builds project. https://bootstrappable.org/projects.html
I never understood why one would subject themselves to bootstrap a system using this method instead of simply cross compiling?
I was curious what architectures were supported by the original GCC, if not x86. It seems the answer is vax and 68020: https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/History
That’s because Eric Ostrom had somehow gotten us a vax 750 for some inexplicable reason (years later he told me he was astonished that nobody appreciated it) as if anybody wanted a vax. So RMS started using it for his gnu project since nobody else cared. It was just using up power in a small machine room on the 3rd (or 7th — I can’t remember) floor of tech square. Complete happenstance.
Nitpick: calling this an "x86" compiler is a modernism. There were, indeed, multiple successor chips to the 8086 in the market. But gcc supported only one of them. This is a 386 compiler, not an x86 compiler.
However, there is (at least one) fork which adds 16-bit code support, see https://github.com/tkchia/gcc-ia16
I don't think the GCC maintainers have ever or will ever want to support 16-bit x86, because it is so limited, and adds a lot of messy corner cases, and nowadays is really only of hobbyist/retrocomputing interest.
Maybe there is some 16-bit x86 embedded system still being maintained–there were military spec versions of the 8086, and possibly some weapons system, aircraft, satellite, etc, still in use contains one. But I doubt they'd have any interest in adopting a 16-bit GCC – they'd already have some proprietary compiler they'd been using for decades, switching now would add a lot of risk, very late in the life of a legacy system, for no tangible benefit
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s because Eric Ostrom had somehow gotten us a vax 750 for some inexplicable reason (years later he told me he was astonished that nobody appreciated it) as if anybody wanted a vax. So RMS started using it for his gnu project since nobody else cared. It was just using up power in a small machine room on the 3rd (or 7th — I can’t remember) floor of tech square. Complete happenstance.
A 750 wasn't very fast back in 1987 if I remember it correctly? But a 784 was still decent?