cvs: wwwdocs /gcc index.html
alex at alexwaugh.com
Sun Mar 21 14:47:22 PST 2004
In message <405E14D6.7090609 at dsvr.net>
Nick Burrett <nick at dsvr.net> wrote:
> Peter Naulls wrote:
> > In message <405D7294.6060401 at dsvr.net>
> > Nick Burrett <nick at dsvr.net> 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 alexwaugh.com
PHP, Roots, Subversion, WebJames and more from http://www.alexwaugh.com/
More information about the gcc