Michael Witten <mfwitten@xxxxxxx> writes: > >> 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. That statement--the one about the generic meta-binary--is also incorrect. This is sometimes known as the "UNCOL trap." However, I apologize for taking your statement too much out of context. > 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. As far as I can see, you are disregarding the answers to your questions because they do not take the form of the answer you desire. Reality is not what you want it to be. However, if you ask again, without the comments about how awful gcc is, I will endeavor to give you a serious answer. Ian
