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