Mail Archives: djgpp/1997/09/16/08:00:49
Herman Schoenfeld <you AT somehost DOT somedomain> wrote in article
<341e2691 DOT 0 AT 139 DOT 134 DOT 5 DOT 33>...
> In article <01bcc1b3$ccb39840$2b40cbc2 AT russnt>,
russ AT algorithm DOT demon DOT co DOT uk
[...]
> >The code it produces being worse than anything else? DJGPP doesn't
> >support Pentium optimising, yet VC5 supports the PPro (Watcom and
> >Borland probably do too). It isn't in the same league as commercial
> >compilers. GCC doesn't even support C++ as well as everything else -
> >templates are a good way to see 'internal compiler error', and I've
> >personally had it fuck up on function calling (pushing the wrong
> >parameters, ignoring return values). GCC is great for doing C programs,
> >and allows code to be remarkably portable, but it isn't the best.
>
> DJGPP isn't that bad. GCC on unix/linux is standard. There are no MSVC
> compilers for them so any comment comparing GCC to MSVC is pretty
> much a waste of bandwidth.
Is the x86 code for Linux apps different to x86 code for Windows, then?
MSVC could (with a little difficulty) be used to code for any Intel
platform.
> If you're comparinh MSVC with DJGPP, you're wrong in all instances.
Sorry, not today.
> DJGPP does support c++.
Yes, but DOES IT WORK? I know DJGPP claims to support C++
(.cc files), but for anything but the simplest code, I certainly wouldn't
trust it.
> DJGPP does support pentium optimising. (PGCC).
i) PGCC != DJGPP.
ii) Pentium MMX? PPro? Pentium 2?
> DJGPP produces fast optimized code.
Compared to Turbo C++, yes. Compared to a real compiler, no.
> Sure, DJGPP doesn't have nice little point-and-click features but most
people
> don't need them.
Gee, I'm such a bad coder that I like source-level debugging and a single
key/icon to build the project. Just because DJGPP isn't easy to use,
doesn't mean it's the best.
> >GCC is a very nice, capable, free compiler, but FFS, the best people in
> >compiler optimisation earn lots of money working for MS, Intel, Borland,
> >Watcom, Symantec, SGI, Sun, DEC, HP etc. They don't work for free.
>
> With flawed logic like that its no wonder you have such trouble with
> programming.
I have trouble programming? Since when? Why hasn't someone told me
about this? (Hrmph. Heads will roll...)
> Just because somebody charges $250 p/hour to produce a compiler
> like Turbo C++ it certainatly doesn't make it better than something
> produced by hundreds of people who already make enough money
> and contribute to a compiler such as DJGPP.
No, but Watcom 11, Borland 5, MSVC 5 are all better than DJGPP.
Not in terms of gcc-induced portability (portable code isn't something
gcc invented, BTW), but in terms of code generation, debugging, IDE,
online help, support.
> You can put all your compilers together and you won't get even half the
support
> DJGPP has.
'Support' doesn't mean the compiler is any good. DJGPP and GCC in
general are very standard, but are not the best. The binary-only
compilers that are available on most systems are usually better. Just
because the PC doesn't have a compiler shipped with the OS doesn't
alter the fact that GCC isn't up to commercial standards.
BTW - Most of the support I've seen for DJGPP involves "don't worry,
that's fixed in 2.8.0". If any commercial compiler manufacturers find
a critical bug, they'll patch it within days - their livelihood depends on
it. That's a damn sight bigger incentive than anything DJGPP/GCC
can come up with.
---
Russ
- Raw text -