From: dsc3pzp@nmrdc1.nmrdc.nnmc.navy.mil (Philip Perucci) Subject: Re: GCC and reliability Date: 1 Jan 1993 19:03:47 GMT
In article <1i1m4eINN9gu@life.ai.mit.edu> mycroft@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Charles Hannum) writes:
>
>In article <C026pE.Cus@mach1.wlu.ca> kfisher3@mach1.wlu.ca (kevin
>fisher U) writes:
>>
>> Ok, after reading a number of posts, and experiencing my own
>> frustrations with GCC, I have this question: is GCC stable enough to
>> use for "serious" (TM) programming, or learing something, like C++?
>
>GCC 2 is considered to be in beta test. If you find bugs, you are
>welcome to send bug reports to `bug-gcc@prep.ai.mit.edu' or
>`bug-g++@prep.ai.mit.edu', but whining about it is unlikely to
>accomplish anything.
I was under the impression that commercial vendors use gcc as a
standard by which to base their own product (excluding AT&T updates
to standard, of course). Is this wrong?
-- =========================================================================== phil perucci | "Any opinions expressed are solely my own views and ssb1pzp@digex.com | do not reflect the position of any organization" ===========================================================================