Re: 80386 C compiler

"BGB" <cr88192@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:vi0dtn$2ehti$1@dont-email.me...

There are any number of open source C compilers. But they need to be
good enough (too many support only a subset, which may not be enough for
the OP) and they need to be public domain for the OP's purposes.

>
I am more in the camp of MIT or BSD license should be good enough for
most things.

Yes, there are a lot of people in a lot of camps, and this is
where we end up - no public domain C90 compiler
(cc64 is close, but is generated code, and not 80386).

And so that is what I am trying to achieve now. I've given
up waiting for someone else to do it.

Trying to go full public domain has a few of its own issues:

Claimed issues.

* Not always recognized as valid;

I'm happy to say in the documentation that you can use
CC0 instead if you wish.

* Implicitly lacks "No Warranty" and "No Liability" protections for the
author (say, if someone wanted to file a lawsuit over the code being
buggy, etc).

You can add such a disclaimer to anything - copyright or
public domain.

Have you ever heard of anyone in the world ever being sued
for writing public domain code that had a bug in it?

PDOS is public domain. It shouldn't be difficult to find what
could be described as a bug in it.

I encourage you to find a bug in it, try to sue me, and see
how far you get.

Anyway - this is part of the reason why we are where we are.

As for C compilers, I have a compiler for my own uses, but:
* MIT licensed;

Yes, yet another non-public domain C compiler described.

BFN. Paul.