Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2000 11:41:38 -0800 From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg@monkeys.com> To: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: [OFFTOPIC] alt. C compiler Message-ID: <87334.947014898@monkeys.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of Tue, 04 Jan 2000 11:06:17 -0800. <200001041906.LAA18457@screech.weirdnoise.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <200001041906.LAA18457@screech.weirdnoise.com>, Ed Hall <edhall@screech.weirdnoise.com> 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 <bug-gcc@gnu.org>? Bugs aren't >very likely to get fixed if no one reports them. > >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. That is *definitely* not true in the case of lcc. lcc is a very well-thought-out compiler. The good news is that lcc is *very* ANSI/ISO conformant. The bad news is that lcc is *very* ANSI/ISO conformant. The implication of the latter statement is that lcc will probably choke on many of the gcc-specific extensions in the various FreeBSD system include files. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?87334.947014898>