Earlier quoted context omitted.
My high school was a “free school” in the same sense of the term. Founded 1640 by royal charter.
According to this seemingly exhaustive list ( https://privycouncil.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2... ), no royal charters were granted in 1640.
Building GCC 1.27 (first GCC with x86 support) (2019)
31–40 of 68 posts
Re: Building GCC 1.27 (first GCC with x86 support) (2019)
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
My high school was a “free school” in the same sense of the term. Founded 1640 by royal charter.
According to this seemingly exhaustive list ( https://privycouncil.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2... ), no royal charters were granted in 1640.
Given that it was issued by the privy counsel it is interesting that it has some notable omissions (though how comprehensive can the records be over such a long period, anyway?). I thought at first it might have been limited to charters in the current UK, but it does have the Massachusetts Company (1629), though not Virginia's charter (1606). Has the East and West India Companies, but not the College of William and Mary (1693) -- there are images of that one on the web, though not the signature.
My school was also in the Massachusetts colony, the somewhat pompous Roxbury Latin, 1643, charter 1645 (the unfortunate Charles I). It's been more than 40 years since I clapped eyes on its charter - astonishing they haven't put it online. My memory that it was 1640 was corrected by a bit of web searching.
Really these things are archaic silly relics, like monarchies themselves.
Re: Building GCC 1.27 (first GCC with x86 support) (2019)
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
According to this seemingly exhaustive list ( https://privycouncil.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2... ), no royal charters were granted in 1640.
My guess: the royal Governor of an (at-the-time) British colony issued a charter in the name of the crown, and people in that colony called it a “royal charter” since it was issued in the King’s name, but while that kind of thing may pass for a “royal charter” in the colonies, in London it was not considered to be one
As my parallel comment noted, there are some notable omissions in that list, quite unsurprising given its thousand year scope.
Re: Building GCC 1.27 (first GCC with x86 support) (2019)
#34Nitpick: 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.
Unless it is not the first version that targets any x86, then there is no nit to pick.
Re: Building GCC 1.27 (first GCC with x86 support) (2019)
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unless it is not the first version that targets any x86, then there is no nit to pick.
The point to a nitpick is to point out something is correct, but misleading. In 1988, no one alive was calling this an "x86" compiler. It was specifically targeting the (then quite new -- about 1.5 years old) 80386 chip, which at the time was the only implementation of the architecture that we understand today as "x86".
Re: Building GCC 1.27 (first GCC with x86 support) (2019)
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point to a nitpick is to point out something is correct, but misleading. In 1988, no one alive was calling this an "x86" compiler. It was specifically targeting the (then quite new -- about 1.5 years old) 80386 chip, which at the time was the only implementation of the architecture that we understand today as "x86".
x86 was originally used to refer to any intel cpu of x86 name, even in the late 80's
Re: Building GCC 1.27 (first GCC with x86 support) (2019)
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
A 750 wasn't very fast back in 1987 if I remember it correctly? But a 784 was still decent?
Not very fast, but it was a bit of a standard in the BSD world as most development there happened on 750s at Berkeley. https://gunkies.org/wiki/4.1_BSD
But VAXen in general in 1987 weren't yet hopelessly slow, right?
I can understand if people didn't like VAXes for personal reasons. I had a pick of both a fast VAX and fast Sun workstations in 1987, the Suns were clear winners for me.
Re: Building GCC 1.27 (first GCC with x86 support) (2019)
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
A 750 wasn't very fast back in 1987 if I remember it correctly? But a 784 was still decent?
No, but it had been lying around unused in a machine room, powered up, for a few years. RMS published the GNU manifesto in 83 or 84.
So if you have the space and free electricity in 1987, sure, give me a fast VAX.
Not so much if you live in a student dorm, but I'm sure some have done that too.
Re: Building GCC 1.27 (first GCC with x86 support) (2019)
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point to a nitpick is to point out something is correct, but misleading. In 1988, no one alive was calling this an "x86" compiler. It was specifically targeting the (then quite new -- about 1.5 years old) 80386 chip, which at the time was the only implementation of the architecture that we understand today as "x86".
x86 was originally used to refer to any intel cpu of x86 name, even in the late 80's
IIRC, I started hearing "x86" once the 486 came out in 1989.
Re: Building GCC 1.27 (first GCC with x86 support) (2019)
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
My guess: the royal Governor of an (at-the-time) British colony issued a charter in the name of the crown, and people in that colony called it a “royal charter” since it was issued in the King’s name, but while that kind of thing may pass for a “royal charter” in the colonies, in London it was not considered to be one
I don't know. While looking around to see if I could find my school's charter online I discovered that Harvard never had a royal charter, though at various times they sought one. On the other hand College of William and Mary got one (from the eponymous co-rulers) in 1693. As my parallel comment noted, there are some notable omissions in that list, quite unsurprising given its thousand year scope.
> As my parallel comment noted, there are some notable omissions in that list, quite unsurprising given its thousand year scope.
The only "Royal Australian" body it has is the Royal Australian Chemical Institute (RACI, to which my father belongs), which is the national professional body for chemistry. But, it is missing many other "Royal Australian” organisations, including all the “Royal Australian” medical professional colleges (e.g. the Royal Australian College of General Practice, to which belongs my mother). I know under Australian law, it is illegal to call yourself “Royal” without approval from Buckingham Palace. But, possibly, that approval isn’t technically considered a “royal charter”-since 1946, the Australian federal and state governments effectively control the use of “Royal”, the Australian government sends the paperwork to Buckingham Palace for the monarch’s signature, but the monarch will sign anything if the right person gives it to them. However, that’s out of the Privy Council’s jurisdiction (which is the UK only), so the Privy Council might not know about it. The RACI is on this list, because it was 1934, and that was before control over the use of the word “Royal” was transferred from the British government to the Australian ones, and hence the Privy Council would have processed the application. EDIT: One page on their website notes that getting permission to call yourself "Royal X" is technically a separate process from getting a royal charter, you can have one without the other
Another guess: the College of William and Mary got a letter from the eponymous monarchs approving its use of their names, but the Privy Council doesn’t technically consider that letter to be a “royal charter”, because it didn’t use the right magic code words to count as one