4 ms·
By which definition, this is absolutely not an "x86" compiler, since it doesn't generate code for any of those other chips. Thus my nitpick.
by ajross 3y ago
By which definition, this is absolutely not an "x86" compiler, since it doesn't generate code for any of those other chips. Thus my nitpick.
- yjftsjthsd-h 3y agoModern GCC (AFAIK) can't target the 8086 or 80186 or 80286; does that disqualify it from being described as an x86 compiler?
- Brian_K_White 3y agoYou are inventing the requirement that all *86 must be supported for some inexplicable reason. It is not there in any ordinary interpretation of any language including English. If it outputs code for a single cpu from 8086 or later in that family, any single one of them, then it is "an x86 compiler". It also doesn't matter what they would have called it at the time. When the 8086 was new, there was not yet a family of *86 model numbers, so no one would call anything an x86 anything. But that doesn't change the fact that now, when the speaker you are incorrectly trying to correct spoke, there is a set with name "x86" and the 8086 is in it. The 8086 is an x86 cpu, and gcc 1.27 is an x86 compiler. If you didn't think that's how those words should be interpreted, well now you are better informed, and will hopefully confuse fewer people in your future communications, and wind up in fewer arguments like this one.