In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
> >So, -O is equivalent to -O1.
[...]
> (I'm glad that you pointed out my faux pas... I won't be using just -O
> with gcc anymore!)
Is this sentense missing a smiley? I hope so, since this is the
attitude that got you intro trouble in first plac
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Thomas David Rivers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> But pragmatically, it sure would be nice if I (or you) as a programmer
>> developing stuff on FreeBSD could include various of the FreeBSD include
>> files into any program that we happen to be working on, and the
> Yes, according to the strict letter of the law, all of these other system
> include files don't even have to exist, and if they do exist, they could
> contain any garbage you want, including random binary bytes that drive the
> compiler absolutely mad. The ANSI C standard has _nothing_ to say a
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Thomas David Rivers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
rfg> Here is a list of a few system include file problems, in no particular
rfg> order. Most of these are ANSI conformance problems.
rfg> ... {bugz elided} ...
> This begs a question and to help in my understan
> Martin Cracauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in list.freebsd-hackers:
> > You will not be able to use all features of FreeBSD, of course.
> > Calling functions that take long long arguments doesn't work, these
> > should be masked out when compiling struct ansi code. It may get
> > painful quic
>
>
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Martin Cracauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >... If you have examples where it breaks, send them to me, please.
>
> Here is a list of a few system include file problems, in no particular
> order. Most of these are ANSI conformance problems.
>
>
>
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Martin Cracauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>... If you have examples where it breaks, send them to me, please.
Here is a list of a few system include file problems, in no particular
order. Most of these are ANSI conformance problems.
/usr/include/cam/cam.h:15
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, you wrote:
>In the last episode (Jan 05), Ronald F. Guilmette said:
>> Martin Cracauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >When your code breaks when using -O2 or higher, don't do that, use
>> >just -O!
>>
>> Ah, excuse me, but -O is equivalent to -O2.
>
>/usr/sr
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, you wrote:
>> [3] The ANSI C standard, at least, contains the requirement that each
>> individual system include file specified by that standard should
>> be usable all by itself, without the programmer being required to
>> explicitly include any OTHER
Warner Losh writes:
: This is explained in more detail in section 7.1.1.4 of the August 3,
: 1998 committee draft:
Sorry to followup on my own message, but this is in section 7.1.2.4.
Warner
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body
In the last episode (Jan 05), Ronald F. Guilmette said:
> Martin Cracauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >When your code breaks when using -O2 or higher, don't do that, use
> >just -O!
>
> Ah, excuse me, but -O is equivalent to -O2.
/usr/src/contrib/gcc/toplev.c:4821
if (!strcmp (argv[i
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Nate Williams writes:
: > [3] The ANSI C standard, at least, contains the requirement that each
: > individual system include file specified by that standard should
: > be usable all by itself, without the programmer being required to
: > explicitly inclu
> [3] The ANSI C standard, at least, contains the requirement that each
> individual system include file specified by that standard should
> be usable all by itself, without the programmer being required to
> explicitly include any OTHER system include files, prior to the one
> he/
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Martin Cracauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Gergely EGERVA
>RY wrote:
>
>> I have just upgraded my system to -current w/egcs 2.95.2 and I have
>> several problems with it, especially when using optimizations (-O2 and
>> such)
>
>When your
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Martin Cracauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Others already said that replacing the system compiler will be
>difficult.
>
>However, you should be able to use any FreeBSD include file that is
>supposed to be used by userlevel code with any ANSI C conforming
>compi
Martin Cracauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in list.freebsd-hackers:
> You will not be able to use all features of FreeBSD, of course.
> Calling functions that take long long arguments doesn't work, these
> should be masked out when compiling struct ansi code. It may get
> painful quickly, as su
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Gergely EGERVARY
wrote:
> I have just upgraded my system to -current w/egcs 2.95.2 and I have
> several problems with it, especially when using optimizations (-O2 and
> such)
When your code breaks when using -O2 or higher, don't do that, use
just -O!
Almost all example
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Gergely EGERVARY
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> is there any alternative (non-commercial) C compiler to use, or is gcc the
> best?
>
> I have just upgraded my system to -current w/egcs 2.95.2 and I have
> several problems with it, especially when using optimizations (-O2 and
> such)
While I wasn't planning to say anything for some time, I am working on a
BSD-licensed aggressively optimizing C compiler. I don't expect it to be
ready for another 6 months, though.
Chuck
On Tue, 4 Jan 2000, Gergely EGERVARY wrote:
> Hi,
>
> is there any alternative (non-commercial) C compi
> On Wed, 5 Jan 2000, Patryk Zadarnowski wrote:
>
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > is there any alternative (non-commercial) C compiler to use, or is gcc the
> > > best?
> > >
> > > I have just upgraded my system to -current w/egcs 2.95.2 and I have
> > > several problems with it, especially when using op
On Wed, 5 Jan 2000, Patryk Zadarnowski wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > is there any alternative (non-commercial) C compiler to use, or is gcc the
> > best?
> >
> > I have just upgraded my system to -current w/egcs 2.95.2 and I have
> > several problems with it, especially when using optimizations (-O2 a
> Hi,
>
> is there any alternative (non-commercial) C compiler to use, or is gcc the
> best?
>
> I have just upgraded my system to -current w/egcs 2.95.2 and I have
> several problems with it, especially when using optimizations (-O2 and
> such)
>
> ok I know there's the good old gcc 2.7.2.3 bu
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Ed Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>One of the issues with an alternative compiler is that you'll likely need
>to keep GCC and associated tools around anyway, for ports, kernels, and
>updates. Probably not a problem, but occasionally multiple tool chains
>can be
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Ed Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: I have just upgraded my system to -current w/egcs 2.95.2 and I have
>: several problems with it, especially when using optimizations (-O2 and
>: such)
>
>Have you reported those problems to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>? Bugs aren't
>
Just so there is no misunderstanding.
I wrote:
As for free alternatives--I don't think there are any, especially if
you are looking for something "better" than the current GCC. The
various free C compilers I've seen over the years have been little
better than toys.
Obviously, compi
On Tue, 4 Jan 2000, Ed Hall wrote:
> : I have just upgraded my system to -current w/egcs 2.95.2 and I have
> : several problems with it, especially when using optimizations (-O2 and
> : such)
>
> Have you reported those problems to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>? Bugs aren't
> very likely to get fixed if
: I have just upgraded my system to -current w/egcs 2.95.2 and I have
: several problems with it, especially when using optimizations (-O2 and
: such)
Have you reported those problems to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>? Bugs aren't
very likely to get fixed if no one reports them.
As for free alternatives--
lcc and TenDRA are both in available as packages.
Charles
-Original Message-
From: Gergely EGERVARY [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2000 11:32 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [OFFTOPIC] alt. C compiler
Hi,
is there any alternative (non-commercial) C compiler
Hi,
is there any alternative (non-commercial) C compiler to use, or is gcc the
best?
I have just upgraded my system to -current w/egcs 2.95.2 and I have
several problems with it, especially when using optimizations (-O2 and
such)
ok I know there's the good old gcc 2.7.2.3 but a good BSD-license
29 matches
Mail list logo
