Mail Archives: djgpp/1997/02/08/18:53:01
Hallo Daniel.
The bug you posted is only a violation of ANSI-specifications. The
proprocessor shouldn't allow to compile it, but it does.
Some people call it a feature and you should see their point instead of
getting angry. I my eyes is a compiler bug something that makes a legal
source compile to an incorrect program.
The bug you posted is different. It allows you to do something, you were
normally not allowed. This doesn't cause any harm, but enables people to
code in a language that is not ANSI-C++, but is an extension of it. Some
people call it a feature and I suppose, this is why it is a known bug,
very likely *not* to be removed.
Concerning bugs I'd say that version 2.7.2.1 is far more bugfree than
any other C++ compiler I used. I used gcc 2.6.3 for long time and found
it very buggy, 2.7.0 was horrible!
I also used BC in some versions, but they were not too good. Remembering
4.0 I'd say one can compare it to 2.7.0 of GNU, but no serious developer
would switch to .0 versions anyway. I'll leave my hands off from gcc
2.8.0 for long.
One thing that is very good about gcc is response time. From Borland one
is very likely to have bugs never being corrected, whereas gcc has very
good support, known bugs and other nice things.
One thing that is not so good is that features are being implemented
only very slowly. I have a lib that compiles well with BC4.5 and many
other compilers, but gcc saying "sorry not implemented".
Mls, Kay
## CrossPoint v3.11 R ##
- Raw text -