From: Linley Henzell <zel AT olis DOT net DOT au>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: DJGPP vs Borland C++
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 10:44:41 -0800
Organization: Microtronics Information Systems
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <32ECF799.74EF@olis.net.au>
References: <5c1qik$9sh AT lion DOT cs DOT latrobe DOT edu DOT au> <32E98087 DOT 6A50 AT cs DOT com>
Reply-To: zel AT olis DOT net DOT au
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp0d.olis.net.au
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

John M. Aldrich wrote:
> 
> Gregary J Boyles wrote:
> >
> > On the whole I have found Borland C++ compilers to be among the most unreliable and unpredictable products on the market. Has any one else encountered the
> > same problems and how does djgpp compare to them?
> 
> Borland is well-known for its bugginess.  DJGPP, OTOH, has consistently
> proven to be better and more reliable than any other compiler it
> competes with.  

Well, I'm having some problems with a C program written with Borland C++
3.1 which refuses to work with DJGPP v2. It compiles fine, but every
time I run it, it aborts with a SIGSEGV GPF. I have no idea why this
happens, because it seems to choose a completely arbitrary point at
which to abort (I checked with Symify), and my program contains nothing
which I can imagine being objectionable (like pointers or dynamic memory
allocation).
Meanwhile, a little test program works okay with DJGPP.

Borland's compiler has no problems whatsoever with it, and I've rarely
had any problems with BC++. If anybody knows about something which
Borland C++ 3.1 copes with, but which DJGPP just doesn't like, I would
really appreciate them letting me know so that I can remove it from my
program! Any assistance in this problem would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, 
Linley Henzell