home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
- Subject: Re: GCC and reliability
- Path: sparky!uunet!think.com!spdcc!merk!rmkhome!rmk
- From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
- Organization: The Man With Ten Cats
- Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 15:00:22 GMT
- Reply-To: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
- Message-ID: <9301021000.36@rmkhome.UUCP>
- References: <C026pE.Cus@mach1.wlu.ca> <1i1m4eINN9gu@life.ai.mit.edu> <C06vMC.Bts@nmrdc1.nmrdc.nnmc.navy.mil>
- Lines: 31
-
- 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
-