Xref: news2.mv.net comp.os.msdos.djgpp:1387
From: jesper AT chaos DOT fys DOT dtu DOT dk (Jesper Skovhus Thomsen)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: Problems with cc1.exe (djgpp v 2.0)
Date: 20 Feb 1996 08:39:55 GMT
Organization: Physics Department, DTU, Denmark
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <4gc1cs$dpl@news.uni-c.dk>
References: <4fuuch$6db AT segfault DOT monkeys DOT com> <4fv9np$2dq AT coli-gate DOT coli DOT uni-sb DOT de> <WALD DOT 96Feb15143006 AT woodpecker DOT lcs DOT mit DOT edu> <3123d4b4 DOT sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu> <4g9hdb$ene AT news DOT uni-c DOT dk> <3128a6dc DOT sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: chaos.fys.dtu.dk
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

Charles Sandmann (sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu) wrote:
> It's definitely a size and complexity issue.  The V2 compiler was used to 
> build itself (both C and C++) which is a reasonably severe test.  But 
> people may have bigger modules out there which push the stack issues over
> the line.

Yes but the source code of the compiler is not put into one single large
file but are broken down into smaller piceses.

> > I have found a beta 3 distribution; I will try to see if the cc1.exe 
> > from the beta 3 distbution can compile my program without any stubediting.

> That would be an interesting test.  The only problems I remember with beta 3
> gcc are flakey CTRL-C support, inconsistent LFN handling, etc.  We could
> always build 2.6.3 with the final release if there is a need.

I have tried the cc1.exe from djgpp 2.0 beta 3 but it gave the same result
as the cc1.exe from the 2.0 distribution. With default stack size cc1.exe
simply stops and locks up the computer, but works with stack size 512kB.
So in this respect there is no difference between 2.6.3 and 2.7.2.

Jesper Skovhus Thomsen

"... statistics that gray area which is not quite a branch of mathematics ---
and just as surely not quite a branch of science". 
Numerical Recipes in C 2. ed.