[MiNT] Re: GCC

[Henk Robbers <H.Robbers@cable.A2000.nl>]

Hi Guido.

Guido Flohr wrote:

> - Where is PureC++??

Too big a job I think.

> - Ever tried to compile an average Unix software package with it?

Nop.
I have no idee how big they are. It sounds big. :-)
My biggest program is only some 250K as a binary.
Entirely written by my lonely self . ;-)
How big is an avarage Unix package?
Meeting limits is often a source of bugs.
It is possible that I never met such bugs.
happy me :-)

> - It is not free and you can't even buy it anymore.
> - It is non-standard.

Hmm, they claim to be full ANSI. Never stumbled on a deviation.

> - It causes permanent trouble because MiNT and MiNTLib maintainers
>   do desperate efforts to still support it.

The ANSI standard comprises a complete library. (no AES/VDI)
This library is defined in ANSI C.
It is not mandatory to actually write this library in C or even the compiler.
Even the standard headers, although defined as C, need not even be files at ALL.
If you want to use non ANSI or non C stuff,  then just stop supporting Pure C.
It is only confusing.
This might well relieve the maintainers. :-)

> It is still copyrighted and there
> is no chance to purchase it for people that are new to the scene.

I saw it in a lot of ftp sites, illegal?

> Sozobon may be an alternative to gcc but I don't see a lot of
> active maintenance there, neither.

I have tried out version 2 some time ago.
Dont know if that was the latest.
It produced slightly better code then Pure C.
It was still 1st ed C.
They implemented  prototyping, but forgot implicit parameter casting.
This has desastrous consequences when source is ported around.
Also the formal prototype (w/o names) does not work in auto.
A bit opportunistic all that.

When I am talking C, I talk K&R 2nd ed. Not because it is good,
but because it is the only document I can rely on.

Cu.

Henk.