Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!munnari.oz.au!csc!ccadfa!usage!basser!metro!extro!natmlab!ditsyda!evans
From: evans@ditsyda.oz (Bruce Evans)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: Suggested change to ACC compiler
Message-ID: <2217@ditsyda.oz>
Date: 18 Sep 89 09:31:10 GMT
References: <3196@ast.cs.vu.nl> <531@sirius.ua.oz.au> <1613@draken.nada.kth.se> <3249@ast.cs.vu.nl>
Reply-To: evans@ditsyda.oz (Bruce Evans)
Organization: CSIRO DIT Sydney, Australia
Lines: 13

In article <3249@ast.cs.vu.nl> ast@cs.vu.nl (Andy Tanenbaum) writes:
>Maybe we could have the current compiler at least accept the new keywords
> const, volatile, and maybe a couple of others, and ignore them.  This
>would at least eliminate -DCONST= etc.

If you don't do a complete job on them, it is misleading to pretend they
are implemented, not much better than putting -Dconst= etc. in the cc
driver.

What about the front end to the ANSI compiler, does it fit in 64K + 64K?
How big are all the passes exactly?
-- 
Bruce Evans		evans@ditsyda.oz.au