Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 21:06:09 +0600 (LKT) From: Kalum Somaratna aka Grendel X-Sender: kalum AT roadrunner DOT grendel DOT net To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: Internal compiler error In-Reply-To: <8h2rnd$i7n$1@nets3.rz.RWTH-Aachen.DE> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk On 31 May 2000, Hans-Bernhard Broeker wrote: > > Windows 9x often still seems to work, on such a machine with flakey > memory. Draw your own conclusion about what that tells about the inner > quality of that OS... Although I am not a fan of windoze Hans, I would like to ask "why shouldn't it not work"...If only programs which are memory hogs (like gcc) and use the CPU at 100% are supposed to crash...then the fact that windoze doesn't crash on the same machine means that windoze code is very efficient and less resource consuming, doesn't it... So the fact that windoze or anyother program *doesn't* crash on a machine with flaky memory is due to low quality is illogical to say the least..infact I see no association whatsoever... Infact it shows the opposite...how badly gcc is desgined...from my experience other compilers..(Watcom, borland) require *far less* resources than gcc to compile programs.. frex: Watcom v 10.x can compile almost any program with as little as 4MB of memory....while it would take almost that amount to load GCC completely in to memory.. Grendel Hi, I'm a signature virus. plz set me as your signature and help me spread :)