drl@vuse.vanderbilt.edu (01/28/91)
[This message was sent to INFO-UNIX a few weeks ago but generated no repsonse - drl] In a [not so] recent posting to unix-sources-bugs (or more likely to comp.sources.unix.bugs), Chip Salzenburg <chip@tct.uucp> wrote (among other things): >... If you define NUKE_MICROSOFT from the command line or from your >configuration header file, then these patches are disabled and the PCC >convention is used. NUKE_MICROSOFT is provided for those of you who >prefer using "rcc" (SCO's name for PCC) instead of "cc". Of course, >if you use "rcc", then you don't need this patch at all. :-) This passage tickled something in my memory and I wanted to hear from those who really know. I don't believe that "rcc" is actually a Microsoft invention but rather is the name of the 3rd generation compiler based on the original portable C compiler, pcc. I even seem to recall that there was some discussion of an "scc", which I assume would be the 4th generation of the same compiler family. Is "rcc" an AT&T derivative of "pcc"? David
rstevens@noao.edu (Rich Stevens) (01/29/91)
In article <25731@adm.brl.mil> drl@vuse.vanderbilt.edu writes: >I don't believe that "rcc" is actually a >Microsoft invention but rather is the name of the 3rd generation >compiler based on the original portable C compiler, pcc. I even seem >to recall that there was some discussion of an "scc", which I assume >would be the 4th generation of the same compiler family. > >Is "rcc" an AT&T derivative of "pcc"? The paper "Four Generations of the Portable C Compiler" by David Kristol (Proceedings of the 1986 Summer Usenix Conference, Atlanta), pp. 335-343 gives all the details. The genealogy was pcc -> pcc2 -> qcc -> rcc. Rich Stevens