From:	Andrew Crabtree <andrewc AT typhoon DOT rose DOT hp DOT com>
Message-Id:	<199706111426.AA230219164@typhoon.rose.hp.com>
Subject:	Re: Speed of DJGPP?
To:	frenchc AT cadvision DOT com (Calvin French)
Date:	Wed, 11 Jun 1997 7:26:03 PDT
Cc:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
In-Reply-To:	<5nl177$3o9a@elmo.cadvision.com>; from "Calvin French" at Jun 11, 97 2:06 am

>  let's say 2.8, or whatever a significan't 
> version update would be) or what?
Of course.  There are a couple of places where you can get the gcc snapshots
(you should be a developer though), or you could try the pgcc binaries.
C++ has better RTTI and exception support, as well as support for
borland and auto repository template handling (I think).


> I myself can't see exactly why gcc needs 
> to use temp files, i.e., why use separate programs at all?
On a lot of systems you already have an assembler and linker.  Lots 
of times you just replace the compiler itself.  For instance, you can't
use the gnu linker on hpux, it doesn't work.  But, if you want
-g to work then you must replace the hp assembler with the gnu one.  
Anyway, the old unixes used to work that way, having them in separate
units also IMHO makes debugging individuall sections easier.

Andrew

- Raw text -