z8my@vax5.CIT.CORNELL.EDU (07/10/89)
It seems to me, and has been pointed out before, that Herman Rubin of Purdue wants a language, or a language construct to allow him to include non-port- able commands that compile to some specific, machine-dependent code. Unfortunately for him, nearly everyone else in comp.arch (I don't read cop.lang.misc) feels that portability is more important. So can we end this endless argument? Sam Paik d65y@vax5.cit.cornell.edu