cvs: wwwdocs /gcc index.html

Alex Waugh alex at
Sun Mar 21 14:47:22 PST 2004

In message <405E14D6.7090609 at>
          Nick Burrett <nick at> wrote:

> Peter Naulls wrote:
> > In message <405D7294.6060401 at>
> >           Nick Burrett <nick at> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >>Alex Waugh wrote:
> >>
> >>>I don't see any reason for not supporting 26-bit operating systems.
> >>
> >>I can't see a good reason for supporting 26-bit operating systems.  IIRC 
> >>it was mentioned that 32-bit apps work on the 26-bit OS anyway.
> > 
> > 
> > These are conflicting statements.  By producing 32-bit code, we are
> > supporting both 26-bit and 32-bit Operating Systems.  Certainly, we
> > don't support 26-bit only code, and there's no particular reason to do
> > so.
> So dropping support for 26-bit code is a non-issue.  I don't really see 
> what the problem was with what I originally wrote, albeit it could have 
> been explained a little better.

Because not supporting 26-bit operating systems is a separate
issue from not producing 26-bit code.

> BTW, 26-bit output is now deprecated in GCC 3.4 and will be removed from 
> GCC 3.5.

I don't see that as a problem.


Alex Waugh                                           alex at

PHP, Roots, Subversion, WebJames and more from

More information about the gcc mailing list