Received: (from major@localhost) by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.1/8.9.1) id KAA00720 for pups-liszt; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 10:40:08 +1100 (EST) (envelope-from owner-pups@minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au) X-Authentication-Warning: minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au: major set sender to owner-pups@minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au using -f Received: from moe.2bsd.com (0@MOE.2BSD.COM [206.139.202.200]) by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA00713 for ; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 10:40:00 +1100 (EST) (envelope-from sms@moe.2bsd.com) Received: (from sms@localhost) by moe.2bsd.com (8.9.0/8.9.0) id PAA18529 for pups@minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au; Sun, 22 Nov 1998 15:31:04 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 15:31:04 -0800 (PST) From: "Steven M. Schultz" Message-Id: <199811222331.PAA18529@moe.2bsd.com> To: pups@minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au Subject: Re: 4.3-VAX distributions Sender: owner-pups@minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au Precedence: bulk Hi - > The lifting of the filesystem limits is in Tahoe, not in Reno. When you > talk about the speed of Reno's binaries, what are you comparing it to? I > know for sure that there are no significant changes in the C compiler > between plain 4.3, Tahoe, and Reno. UH, not quite so. Unless 4.3 and Tahoe used GCC (which they did not). I'd say that there is a big difference between the 4.3 C compiler (pcc or whatever it started out as) and GCC. Tahoe, while adding support for the CCI line of computers (tried to get folks to buy one but they wouldn't go for it) did NOT use GCC (which wasn't out yet or if it was had just started making an appearance). Reno came with GCC though. The older pre-Reno compilers (being straight K&R) didn't handle prototypes - that's what you had "lint" for. Steven Schultz sms@Moe.2bsd.com