Re: [MiNT] Re: GCC

[Johan Klockars <rand@cd.chalmers.se>]

> > > Hmm, they claim to be full ANSI. Never stumbled on a deviation.
...
> In that case, because I do not port sources
> very often, can anybody tell me the deviations.

I once had to modify a program because PureC (I don't think it was back
in the TurboC days) complained about something to do with namespaces.
It might have been along the lines of the example below (a variable with
the same name as a struct) but, unfortunately, it's been so long that I
don't really recall more than that there _was_ a problem of some kind...

   typedef struct test1 {
      int a;
   } test2;

   struct test1 x;
   test2 y;

   int test1;          /* Should be OK (gcc with -ansi -pedantic) */
   /* int test2; */    /* This should give an error if uncommented */

Personally, I try to avoid PureC because it causes me more problems
(mainly because of its 16 bit ints) than the compilation speed is worth
(both gcc and Lattice are reasonably quick on an '040).
I also don't like to use C as a 'macro assembler', which is more or less
necessary if you want to get decent speed out of PureC compiled code.
Take a look at dejanews for my Usenet articles comparing the three
compilers mentioned here if you want to see what I mean.

-- 
  Chalmers University   | Why are these |  e-mail:   rand@cd.chalmers.se
     of Technology      |  .signatures  |            johan@rand.thn.htu.se
                        | so hard to do |  WWW/ftp:  rand.thn.htu.se
   Gothenburg, Sweden   |     well?     |            (MGIFv5, QLem, BAD MOOD)