Dan Sugalski wrote:
> I object to targetting GCC specifically for two reasons,
> though, neither of them VMS related:
>
> 1) Targeting a single compiler, no matter whose it is, is a bad idea. We're
> writing in a *language*, not for a compiler. Targeting a specific compiler
> restricts us even more than choosing a language.
How about trying standards? While gcc is a standard in itself, writing
perl6 in ANSI C should provide for just the portability we try
to achieve.
> 2) GCC produces slow code on all platforms where there's an alternative.
> Compaq C beats it on Alphas and VAXen, Sun's compiler beats it on SPARC
> machines, and HP's beats it on PA-RISC machines. Heck, Microsoft's compiler
> beats it on x86 chips. (As does Intel's compiler) We want perl fast, and
> crippling it by requiring a particular compiler's a foolish thing.
How about a two-step requirement?
1) Native compiler must support ANSI-C.
2) If 1) doesn't hold, gcc can be required, which fulfills ANSI-C.
Systems that cannot fulfill 1) or 2) are not worthy to run
perl6 in the first place... ;-)
> There's no reason I can see, outside of ideological ones, to require gcc.
Yeah, we should see it as a fallback solution really, but it
shouldn't be our first choice.
Roland
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
