| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
I'll explain:I'll explain:Posted Oct 24, 2006 21:47 UTC (Tue) by stijn (subscriber, #570)In reply to: I'll explain: by i3839 Parent article: GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal)
On how many architectures does the intel compiler work?
(Log in to post comments)
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.
|
|
||||||||||||