*BSD News Article 7146


Return to BSD News archive

Path: sserve!manuel.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!spool.mu.edu!wupost!ukma!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!agate!ames!sun-barr!news2me.EBay.Sun.COM!seven-up.East.Sun.COM!sungy!stasys!lmsys!mrz!busybit!jochen
From: jochen@busybit.mrz.sub.org (Jochen Fahrner)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: How suitable is gcc-2.2.2 for 386bsd?
Message-ID: <JOCHEN.92Oct25193856@busybit.mrz.sub.org>
Date: 25 Oct 92 18:38:56 GMT
References: <colin.719809711@marsh> <1992Oct23.065308.15617@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg>
	<1992Oct23.222805.24970@klaava.Helsinki.FI>
Sender: uucp@stasys.sta.sub.org
Organization: Busybit's Software Labor, D-8068 Pfaffenhofen
Lines: 34
X-Md4-Signature: 0dad0b3a52a753b36c04a7a94ead5288
In-Reply-To: torvalds@klaava.Helsinki.FI's message of 23 Oct 92 22:28:05 GMT

In article <1992Oct23.222805.24970@klaava.Helsinki.FI> torvalds@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Linus Torvalds) writes:

   In article <1992Oct23.065308.15617@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg> eoahmad@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg (Othman Ahmad) writes:
   >
   >I strongly advise people not to remove the original gcc-1.39.
   >gcc-2.2.2 has lots of bugs.

   gcc-2.2.2 does NOT have lot's of bugs - quite the reverse is true in my
   opinion (I had more troubles with gcc-1.39 code generation than with
   gcc-2.2.2).  You may have a few problems with C++, but so far I haven't
   heard of any bad bugs in gcc-2.2.2 that would make me want to have an
   older version. 

I don't know, if 1.39 is perfect, but 2.2.2 is *not* !

Two weeks ago we got a new version of our database "TransBase". The
people came with the source in the pocket and tried to compile it on
our system (SCO 3.2v4). Because I am a great fan of gcc (and I hate
the microsoft compiler), I renamed the original compiler (Microsoft C
6.0) to mscc and gcc to cc, so they had to use gcc without knowing it :-)

But what's that: The source code of their database did not compile
with gcc, at one source file gcc aborted with "internal compiler
error" !

Then I renamed the compilers to their original names, they recompiled
it with Microsoft C and voila: It worked.

I could not believe it, but it's so.
Next time when they install a new release, I will try gcc 1.40 :-)

Jochen
-- 
Jochen Fahrner, D-8068 Pfaffenhofen, jochen@busybit.mrz.sub.org