From: chuck AT no DOT junk DOT mail DOT com (Chuck Adams)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: What parts of DJGPP are 'pure' unix ?
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 96 14:14:49 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Martin EIS
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <51u8s6$14o@butch.lmsc.lockheed.com>
References: <323DADCE DOT 3699 AT ida DOT utb DOT hb DOT se>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.7.11.31
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

In article <323DADCE DOT 3699 AT ida DOT utb DOT hb DOT se>, Christian Axbrink <sa9471 AT ida DOT utb DOT hb DOT se> wrote:
>Hello!
>
>I am new to the unix way of distributing programs as source code, and I
>have a few amateurish questions, please bear with me...
>
>According to recent postings it is possible to compile a version of
>DJGPP with pentium optimisations using patches for Linux GCC from
>'Pentium Compiler Group'.
>This implies either that at least some parts of the DJGPP package is
>*completely*  Unix compatible (I mean, we are not talking about any old
>application here, we are talking about the compiler, the most convoluted
>and low-level thing on any system, yes?) or unwholesomely smart and
>allknowing makefiles.
>So I wonder, wich parts are compiled from 'pure' GNU unix source code,
>and wich parts are rewritten for DOS ?  

Take a look at the info file for libc.a.  There is a section there called 
"UNIX functions".  Most of those have been disabled under DOS and either 
always return false or raise runtime errors.

And gcc is pretty strange as fas as compilers go.  Its code generation is 
determined by what amounts to unwholesomely smart and all-knowing makefiles :)
And probably the most low-level thing on any system besides the kernel 
itself would probably be the assembler, not the compiler.