Re: Is There Still a Need for "Turbo" Compilers?

Nils M Holm wrote:

(snip)

> I agree that fast compilers seem to become a lost art, and I think
> that this is unfortunate. Fast turn-around cycles are a major factor
> in productivity, and you can still do the final build with an
> optimizing compiler (or with optimization enabled).

It seems that compilers not requiring huge amounts of memory is also a
lost art.

There are people trying to get gcc running on S/370, with its 24 bit
address space and maybe 8M available to a user process.  It seems that
gcc can't compile itself in 8M.

The solution, then, is a new architecture based on S/370 but with more
address bits and a modified MVS to run on it.

-- glen
[My, that's bloated.  Sixth edition Unix could compile itself in
about 32K. -John]