Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 10:07:16 +0100 From: Martin Cracauer <cracauer@cons.org> To: mauzi@poli.hu Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: [OFFTOPIC] alt. C compiler Message-ID: <20000105100716.A63545@cons.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0001041924200.30369-100000@aquarius.poli.hu>; from Gergely EGERVARY on Tue, Jan 04, 2000 at 07:32:13PM %2B0100 References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0001041924200.30369-100000@aquarius.poli.hu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In <Pine.BSF.4.21.0001041924200.30369-100000@aquarius.poli.hu>, Gergely EGERVARY wrote: > Hi, > > is there any alternative (non-commercial) C compiler to use, or is gcc the > best? > > 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) Others already said that replacing the system compiler will be difficult. However, you should be able to use any FreeBSD include file that is supposed to be used by userlevel code with any ANSI C conforming compiler. People like Bruce Evans once took great care to guarantee that. It seems this has gone under the wheel by less careful committers since around 3.0, but the goal is nontheless to keep this capability. If you have examples where it breaks, send them to me, please. You will not be able to use all features of FreeBSD, of course. Calling functions that take long long arguments doesn't work, these should be masked out when compiling struct ansi code. It may get painful quickly, as such basic things like seek() are amoung them. Martin -- %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Martin Cracauer <cracauer@cons.org> http://www.cons.org/cracauer/ BSD User Group Hamburg, Germany http://www.bsdhh.org/ 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?20000105100716.A63545>