>>7I'm neither
>>5,6, but you are retarded if you presume AT&T C is anything like C89. Any consequent "C" will never be compatible with any other because there'ren't meant to be forward compatible, because chips are not forward compatible.
>>5 is only correct in that we no longer have portable assembly on chips that emulate their former architectures, and a famous company chose speculative execution against academic and peer professed advice.
Show me a complete compiler up to date covering all OPCODES, then you can post.