Technology and Trends
 USENET Archives
  
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!brl-tgr!tgr!Schau...@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA
From: Schau...@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA (Paul Schauble)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: AT&T 7300 C compiler
Message-ID: <9726@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 4-Apr-85 03:39:58 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.9726
Posted: Thu Apr  4 03:39:58 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 8-Apr-85 00:14:53 EST
Sender: n...@brl-tgr.ARPA
Lines: 6


   I just got a chance to play with the new AT&T Unix PC. Apparently the
optional C compiler only allows 8-character variable names. What gives?
The system is supposed to be System V Unix. I was under the impression
that System V allowed long names. Am  I wrong about System V in general
supporting long names?

Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!henry
From: he...@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: AT&T 7300 C compiler
Message-ID: <5444@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 8-Apr-85 11:39:01 EST
Article-I.D.: utzoo.5444
Posted: Mon Apr  8 11:39:01 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 8-Apr-85 11:39:01 EST
References: <9726@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 13

>    I just got a chance to play with the new AT&T Unix PC. Apparently the
> optional C compiler only allows 8-character variable names. What gives?
> The system is supposed to be System V Unix. I was under the impression
> that System V allowed long names. Am  I wrong about System V in general
> supporting long names?

"System V" is a generic term, like "Unix" (although not as vague, yet).
The recent releases have long names; the old ones don't.

"System V:  consider it a moving target."
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!panda!
talcott!harvard!seismo!brl-tgr!gwyn
From: g...@brl-tgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn <gwyn>)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: AT&T 7300 C compiler
Message-ID: <9881@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 11-Apr-85 12:59:09 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.9881
Posted: Thu Apr 11 12:59:09 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 13-Apr-85 04:36:51 EST
References: <9726@brl-tgr.ARPA> <5444@utzoo.UUCP>
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab
Lines: 4

> "System V:  consider it a moving target."

Would you prefer that it NOT evolve?
Oh, I forgot, there hasn't been anything worthwhile since 1978.

Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!henry
From: he...@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: AT&T 7300 C compiler
Message-ID: <5477@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 13-Apr-85 19:33:07 EST
Article-I.D.: utzoo.5477
Posted: Sat Apr 13 19:33:07 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 13-Apr-85 19:33:07 EST
References: <9726@brl-tgr.ARPA> <5444@utzoo.UUCP>, <9881@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 21

> > "System V:  consider it a moving target."
> 
> Would you prefer that it NOT evolve?
> Oh, I forgot, there hasn't been anything worthwhile since 1978.

Well, not very much, anyway... :-)

More seriously, my original comment was motivated by amusement (and
some disgust) at AT&T simultaneously pushing System V as a "standard"
and continuing to change it in incompatible ways.  Clearly, what AT&T
really wants is that everyone should consider AT&T's *latest* offering
(whatever that happens to be at any given time) to be "the standard",
so that AT&T isn't hampered by having to conform to standards it doesn't
set, and everybody else is.  In this context, it obviously makes sense
for AT&T to (a) push "System V" (whatever it is this week) as "standard",
and (b) keep changing the standard.

"Standardize software:  buy it from AT&T."
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!panda!
talcott!harvard!seismo!brl-tgr!gwyn
From: g...@brl-tgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn <gwyn>)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: AT&T 7300 C compiler
Message-ID: <10016@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 17-Apr-85 11:36:24 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.10016
Posted: Wed Apr 17 11:36:24 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 19-Apr-85 00:13:23 EST
References: <9726@brl-tgr.ARPA> <5444@utzoo.UUCP>, <9881@brl-tgr.ARPA> 
<5477@utzoo.UUCP>
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab
Lines: 15

> More seriously, my original comment was motivated by amusement (and
> some disgust) at AT&T simultaneously pushing System V as a "standard"
> and continuing to change it in incompatible ways.

I haven't noticed any problem tracking the evolution of the AT&T UNIX
product from UNIX System III through UNIX System V Release 2 Version 2.
They have been rather careful to maintain the previous system interface
with each new release (there have been a couple of minor slip-ups but
nothing like the changes from, say, 4.1BSD to 4.2BSD).  Changes have
come in the form of new additions or extensions to existing facilities,
better specifications, and hidden internal improvements.  The System V
Interface Definition provides a controlled way to phase out obsolete
facilities while maintaining a stable system interface for applications.
This looks like a big win to me, whether implemented by AT&T or by other
vendors.

Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site mips.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!panda!talcott!
harvard!seismo!cmcl2!philabs!prls!amdimage!amdcad!decwrl!Glacier!mips!mash
From: m...@mips.UUCP (John Mashey)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: AT&T 7300 C compiler/ variable name lengths (REAL TRUTH)
Message-ID: <125@mips.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 19-Apr-85 13:40:28 EST
Article-I.D.: mips.125
Posted: Fri Apr 19 13:40:28 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 22-Apr-85 02:21:10 EST
References: <9726@brl-tgr.ARPA> <585@ahuta.UUCP> <1252@eagle.UUCP> 
<1113@cmcl2.UUCP>
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Mountain View, CA
Lines: 16

I've noticed that there has been a fair amount of philosophical speculation
on the topic of why the 7300 doesn't use variable names.  The real truth is
that it has absolutely NOTHING to do with philosophical issues, but with
timing of releases and schedule issues.  The sequence is as follows:
1) Convergent's Data Systems Division had been using a tuned-up version of
the MIT cc and assmbler. The A-Team (7300 division) started work with this.
For various reasons, all compiler/assembler support was kept in DSD,
and thus was often tied to DSD release schedules.
2) Last year, we got the 68K SGS (using pcc2) when it became available;
we converted to pcc2 fairly quickly, but there was enough other work to
do (converting assembler code, reimplementing some optimization in pcc2
that we'd done before for pcc1 and adding more, etc) that we didn't turn
on flexnames soon enough for it to get into the 7300 without disrupting
release schedules.
3) I certainly can't speak for the A-Team, but I'd be surprised if
they didn't use flexnames as they become available.