| |||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||
I'll explain:I'll explain:Posted Oct 24, 2006 19:00 UTC (Tue) by stijn (subscriber, #570)In reply to: I'll explain: by tetromino Parent article: GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal)
To be fully fair, the Linux kernel is designed to be compiled by gcc. This seems slightly more
(Log in to post comments)
I'll explain: Posted Oct 24, 2006 21:02 UTC (Tue) by i3839 (subscriber, #31386) [Link] If the kernel is intrinsically tied to gcc, then how come it can be compiled by some other compiler, like say the Intel one? Linux uses some gcc C extensions, but those can and often are also implemented by other compilers.
I'll explain: Posted Oct 24, 2006 21:47 UTC (Tue) by stijn (subscriber, #570) [Link] On how many architectures does the intel compiler work?
I'll explain: Posted Oct 24, 2006 21:54 UTC (Tue) by k8to (subscriber, #15413) [Link] How many nits can dance on the head of a pin?
This comment is not directed at anyone in particular, it is omnidirectional in this discussion.
I'll explain: Posted Oct 24, 2006 22:36 UTC (Tue) by stijn (subscriber, #570) [Link] The point I was making is that in the portability of Linux to many architectures gcc is a crucialfactor. It is all well to say that Linux can in principle be compiled by any suitable compiler and that icc can compile Linux. The statement I made is that linux is intrinsically tied to gcc in the light of Linux's famed portability. I thought that from the theme of this subthread the wording was clear enough, if perhaps a little too implicit.
|
|||||||||||