XPost: comp.os.linux.advocacy
From: ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand
In message , Ezekiel wrote:
> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" wrote in message
> news:ifbvsm$m7d$10@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>
>> In message , Ezekiel wrote:
>>
>>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" wrote in
>>> message news:ifb9he$9a4$6@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>>>
>>>> In message <4d12859d$0$11583$ec3e2dad@unlimited.usenetmonster.com>,
>>>> amicus_curious wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ... gcc [is] crap and ... woefully inadequate for creating any sort of
>>>>> software today.
>>>>
>>>> Odd you should say that, since GCC is a crucial component in the fact
>>>> that so much Free Software is available and supported on two dozen
>>>> different major processor architectures. Basically, if GCC will compile
>>>> for it, Linux and other Free Software will run on it.
>>>
>>>> Contrast Microsoft's Visual Studio tools, which are confined to just
>>>> one measly architecture.
>>>
>>> Another ignoramous who's making claims about things he knows absolutely
>>> nothing about.
>>>
>>>
>>> Targeting Windows CE processors for native Visual Studio 2005 projects
>>>
>>> The Windows CE 5.0 SDK provides support for targeting the following
>>> instruction sets:
>>>
>>> .ARMV4I
>>> .MIPSII
>>> .MIPSII_FP
>>> .MIPSIV
>>> .MIPSIV_FP
>>> .SH4
>>> .x86
>>>
>>
>
>> What a tiny selection.
>
> The only thing tiny here is your knowledge. This "tiny" selection of 7
> different processors is MORE than enough to show that your claim is
> complete and utter nonsense.
But half of them are the same. And how many of them are “major
architectures”, in the sense that Snit, I think it was, kept insisting on
using the term?
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
