H. Peter Anvin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said: > I think at least supporting a "kgcc" compiler makes sense, > conceptually (although it probably should have been called "kcc", but > it's too late now.) There was already some userland package named kcc, with a kcc binary. A Kanji converter of some sort, IIRC. Bill - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10 ? Kurt Garloff
- Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10 ? George
- Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10 ? Jan Dvorak
- Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10 ? Alan Cox
- Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10 ? Miquel van Smoorenburg
- Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10 ? Jeff Garzik
- Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10 ... Miquel van Smoorenburg
- Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10 ? Jakub Jelinek
- Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10 ? H. Peter Anvin
- non-gcc linux? (was Re: Where did kgcc go in 2... Bill Nottingham
- non-gcc linux? (was Re: Where did kgcc go in 2... Tim Riker
- Re: non-gcc linux? (was Re: Where did kgcc... Alan Cox
- Re: non-gcc linux? (was Re: Where did ... Tim Riker
- Re: non-gcc linux? (was Re: Where ... Ben Ford
- Re: non-gcc linux? (was Re: W... Tim Riker
- Re: non-gcc linux? (was R... Theodore Y. Ts'o
- Re: non-gcc linux? (was R... Tim Riker
- Re: non-gcc linux? (was R... Christoph Hellwig
- Re: non-gcc linux? Tim Riker
- Re: non-gcc linux? (was R... Kai Henningsen