gcc/pself*

gcc/pself*

[Gerald Pfeifer]

This issue has come up repeatedly already, but no action has been taken:

How about gcc/pself.c, gcc/pself1.c,... gcc/pself5.c?

These are not really related to GCC at all, so I suggest to simply remove
them, and unless I hear otherwise, I think I'll do that in a few days.

Though, if any global write folk could explicitly approve this change,
I'd make it immediately...

Gerald
-- 
Gerald "Jerry" pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at http://www.dbai.tuwien.ac.at/~pfeifer/

Re: gcc/pself*

[Gerald Pfeifer]

On Thu, 31 May 2001, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> How about gcc/pself.c, gcc/pself1.c,... gcc/pself5.c?
>
> These are not really related to GCC at all, so I suggest to simply remove
> them, and unless I hear otherwise, I think I'll do that in a few days.

Okay, so I made the following change on mainline and branch:

  2001-06-07  Gerald Pfeifer  <pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at>

       * pself.c, pself1.c, pself2.c, pself3.c, pself4.c, pself5.c:
       Remove.

Gerald
-- 
Gerald "Jerry" pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at http://www.dbai.tuwien.ac.at/~pfeifer/

Re: gcc/pself*

[Joe Buck]

> > How about gcc/pself.c, gcc/pself1.c,... gcc/pself5.c?
> >
> > These are not really related to GCC at all, so I suggest to simply remove
> > them, and unless I hear otherwise, I think I'll do that in a few days.
> 
> Okay, so I made the following change on mainline and branch:
> 
>   2001-06-07  Gerald Pfeifer  <pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at>
> 
>        * pself.c, pself1.c, pself2.c, pself3.c, pself4.c, pself5.c:
>        Remove.

I don't think that they should vanish completely, because of historical
interest.  And I'm afraid that our Fearless Leader is rather attached to
them (RMS, that is).  Folks that hang out at MIT too long seem to get
a mystical attachment to this kind of thing.

Maybe we could find some place on the web site to put them.

Re: gcc/pself*

[Phil Edwards]

> From: Joe Buck <jbuck@localhost.localdomain>

What's that noise?  Why, it's the sound of sendmail(8), choking....


On Thu, Jun 07, 2001 at 02:35:11PM -0700, Joe Buck wrote:
> > > These are not really related to GCC at all, so I suggest to simply remove
> > > them, and unless I hear otherwise, I think I'll do that in a few days.
[...]
> Maybe we could find some place on the web site to put them.

Maybe RMS or MIT could find some place on /their/ web sites to put them?
Like he says, they don't have anything at all to do with GCC development.
If somebody wants them, they can always go through cvsweb and browse
the attic.  :-)

Besides, if we're going to make a page for Letterman's Stupid Compiler
Tricks, we should do it right and link to IOCCC.  pself* isn't nearly as
cool as approximating the value of pi by calculating the surface area of
your own source code.


Phil

-- 
pedwards at disaster dot jaj dot com  |  pme at sources dot redhat dot com
devphil at several other less interesting addresses in various dot domains
The gods do not protect fools.  Fools are protected by more capable fools.

Re: gcc/pself*

[Mark Mitchell]

>>>>> "Joe" == Joe Buck <jbuck@localhost.localdomain> writes:

    Joe> I don't think that they should vanish completely, because of

They haven't -- they're still in CVS. :-)

    Joe> Maybe we could find some place on the web site to put them.

Yes, that would be good.  But maybe on the www.gnu.org website under
some "novelties" section.  They really haven't much to do with GCC.

--
Mark Mitchell                   mark@codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery, LLC               http://www.codesourcery.com

Re: gcc/pself*

[Stan Shebs]

Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> 
>        * pself.c, pself1.c, pself2.c, pself3.c, pself4.c, pself5.c:
>        Remove.

The end of an era... <sniff>

With the passing of time, these kinds of things can become harder
and harder to find - for instance, the hangman pragma has been gone
for so long that it's now passed into legend.  It would be good to
have some kind of virtual museum, perhaps on gnu.org somewhere.

Other exhibits could be robotussin.h and the eerily prophetic cp-edsel.h.

Stan

Re: gcc/pself*

[Joern Rennecke]

> With the passing of time, these kinds of things can become harder
> and harder to find - for instance, the hangman pragma has been gone
> for so long that it's now passed into legend.  It would be good to

hangman?  Where did hangman come in?

/* This was a fun hack, but #pragma seems to start to be useful.
   By failing to recognize it, we pass it through unchanged to cc1.  */

/*
 * the behavior of the #pragma directive is implementation defined.
 * this implementation defines it as follows.
 */

static int
do_pragma ()
{
  close (0);
  if (open ("/dev/tty", O_RDONLY, 0666) != 0)
    goto nope;
  close (1);
  if (open ("/dev/tty", O_WRONLY, 0666) != 1)
    goto nope;
  execl ("/usr/games/hack", "#pragma", 0);
  execl ("/usr/games/rogue", "#pragma", 0);
  execl ("/usr/new/emacs", "-f", "hanoi", "9", "-kill", 0);
  execl ("/usr/local/emacs", "-f", "hanoi", "9", "-kill", 0);
nope:
  fatal ("You are in a maze of twisty compiler features, all different");
}

Re: gcc/pself*

[Stan Shebs]

Joern Rennecke wrote:
> 
> > With the passing of time, these kinds of things can become harder
> > and harder to find - for instance, the hangman pragma has been gone
> > for so long that it's now passed into legend.  It would be good to
> 
> hangman?  Where did hangman come in?

The "try different programs" code came later, although I don't
ever remember a version that didn't try "hangman" or "hm" first,
then the other programs.  It's too bad we don't have a full change
history for GCC to answer this and the more important questions
that come up from time to time...

Stan

> /* This was a fun hack, but #pragma seems to start to be useful.
>    By failing to recognize it, we pass it through unchanged to cc1.  */
> 
> /*
>  * the behavior of the #pragma directive is implementation defined.
>  * this implementation defines it as follows.
>  */
> 
> static int
> do_pragma ()
> {
>   close (0);
>   if (open ("/dev/tty", O_RDONLY, 0666) != 0)
>     goto nope;
>   close (1);
>   if (open ("/dev/tty", O_WRONLY, 0666) != 1)
>     goto nope;
>   execl ("/usr/games/hack", "#pragma", 0);
>   execl ("/usr/games/rogue", "#pragma", 0);
>   execl ("/usr/new/emacs", "-f", "hanoi", "9", "-kill", 0);
>   execl ("/usr/local/emacs", "-f", "hanoi", "9", "-kill", 0);
> nope:
>   fatal ("You are in a maze of twisty compiler features, all different");
> }