Subject: Re: GCC and reliability From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 15:00:22 GMT
In article <C06vMC.Bts@nmrdc1.nmrdc.nnmc.navy.mil> dsc3pzp@nmrdc1.nmrdc.nnmc.navy.mil (Philip Perucci) writes:
>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?
The standard for C is the ANSI spec.
The standard for C++ is AT&T CFRONT.
Amiga UNIX, Dell UNIX, and NeXTStep all use GCC as their main OS compiler,
and as the main C compiler that they ship. All three companies have done
extensive modifications to GCC for their own purposes. Thay all use the
pre-2.x source base for GCC.
--Rick Kelly rmkhome!rmk@merk.com merk!rmkhome!rmk rmk@frog.UUCP