Re: Tiny GCC: Pure, Unadulterated, Object Code

[Michael Witten <mfwitten at MIT dot EDU>]

On 29 Jan 2008, at 10:54 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:

> Michael Witten <mfwitten@MIT.EDU> 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