cvs: wwwdocs /gcc index.html

Nick Burrett nick at dsvr.net
Mon Mar 22 11:01:08 PST 2004


Alex Waugh wrote:
> 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.

Ah yes, I see the mistake now.  It's corrected.

Nick.






More information about the gcc mailing list