On 29 Jan 2008, at 10:54 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Michael Witten <mfwitten@xxxxxxx> writes:
There is just no way to make a "generic i386 gcc".
Sure there is: Pure binary.
That makes no sense in the context you are discussing. There is no
pure binary which will run on both a GNU/Linux system and a Windows
system. Even on a bare embedded board, which is very different from a
GNU/Linux or Windows system, different devices must be handled in
different ways.
That was more of a jest.
Why not take that quote in context:
There is just no way to make a "generic i386 gcc".
Sure there is: Pure binary.
What you mean to say: There's just no way to make one final meta-
binary (object code);
however, I'm sure a more generic meta-binary level above ELF and PE
could be used
[before translation to either].
So yes, it did make sense in the context I am discussing.
I think you need to understand why this makes no sense before you can
proceed to understanding why the rest of your posting makes no sense.
I think you need to understand all of one's posting before you proceed
to reply.
That being stated, I have consistently admitted that I have a limited
knowledge. Furthermore, I would like to add that no reply I have
received
thus far has contributed to improving said knowledge.
Sincerely,
Michael Witten
