Re: Kernel 2.0.33 can not be compiled by gcc libc 5.4.23 and 5.4.33?

Blu3Viper (
Thu, 15 Jan 1998 22:26:10 -0800 (PST)

On Fri, 16 Jan 1998, Mitch Davis wrote:

> I'm sure you remember the easter egg that Ken Thompson revealed a
> few years ago. It's well worth reading:
> With this in mind, many people still maintain machines that they have
> read _every_ line of source for. To them, running an outside binary
> is anathema.

the question is whether you want to compile a compiler with a compiler
that is known and documented as broken or use a binary that has been
distributed and used for nigh unto a year with no complaints.

rely on a broken compiler?
rely on someone else?

if you insist on using a broken compiler, don't expect help. if you use a
broken compiler to make your new compiler, don't expect people to have any
faith in your results.


[reply to: without the 127-0-0-1.]
*** *** Flames will go to /dev/null
** WARNING ** SPAM mail will be returned to you at a
*** *** minimum rate of 50,000 copies per email