Re: Clang - what is the story?



Quoth Robert Bonomi on Sunday, 22 January 2012:
Da Rock <freebsd-questions@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I personally had no idea this was going on; my impression was gcc grew
out of the original compiler that built unix, and the only choices were
borland and gcc. The former for win32 crap and the latter for, well,
everything else.

"Once upon a time", there were _many_ alternatives for C compilers.
Commercial -- i.e. 'you pay for it', or bundled with a pay O/S -- offerings
included (this is a _partial_ list, ones _I_ have personal knowledge of):

PCC -- (the original one0 medium-lousy code but the code-generator was
easily adapted to new/diferent hardwre
Green Hills Softwaware (used by a number of unix hardare manufacturers)
Sun Microsystems developed their own ("acc")
Silicon Graphics, Inc
Hewlett-Packard
Symantic (Think C -- notable for high-performance on early Apple Mac's,
significantly better than Apple's own MPW)
Manx Software ("Aztec C" -- a 'best of breed' for MS-DOS)
Microsoft
Intel
CCS
Watcom
Borland
Zortech
Greenleaf Software
Ellis Computing (specializing in 'budget' compilers, circa $30 pricetags)
"Small C"
tcc -- the 'tiny C compiler


I'm sure others can name ones I've overlooked.

I used a horrible C compiler on CP/M -- I guess I've blocked its name out
of my memory. Anything you found in K&R that sounded cool you had to go
write a test program to see if this compiler actually supported it.
Sometimes it did, but differently.

--
.O. | Sterling (Chip) Camden | http://camdensoftware.com
..O | sterling@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx | http://chipsquips.com
OOO | 2048R/D6DBAF91 | http://chipstips.com

Attachment: pgpEuKaaCU7GY.pgp
Description: PGP signature