Very Computer

by **enkid** » Thu, 13 Jan 2000 04:00:00

Hello

first things first : I AM NOT a developer

I downloaded some sources for linux and the given makefile is as
follows :

#
# Compiler definitions and flags
CC = egcs
C++ = egcs
LINK = egcs
AR = ar

DEFINES = -D__linux__ -D__PTHREADS__=1 -DQTFILE_MEMORY_DEBUGGING=0
CCFLAGS = -g -ansi -Wall
C++FLAGS = $(CCFLAGS)

(etcetera)

I want to compile this under Solaris/x86 with gcc 2.8.1, I don't have
egcs. Can anyone tell me how the CCFLAGS and the DEFINES should be
changed ? Any helpful comment greatly appreciated.

enkidu

by **Paul Egge** » Fri, 14 Jan 2000 04:00:00

>CC = egcs
>C++ = egcs
>LINK = egcs

Change these from `egcs' to `gcc'.
You should also upgrade to GCC 2.95.2 while you're at it.
2.8.1 is getting pretty long in the tooth.

by **Alexander Rung** » Fri, 14 Jan 2000 04:00:00

> Hello

> first things first : I AM NOT a developer

> I downloaded some sources for linux and the given makefile is as
> follows :

> #
> # Compiler definitions and flags
> CC = egcs
> C++ = egcs
> LINK = egcs
> AR = ar

> DEFINES = -D__linux__ -D__PTHREADS__=1 -DQTFILE_MEMORY_DEBUGGING=0
> CCFLAGS = -g -ansi -Wall
> C++FLAGS = $(CCFLAGS)

> (etcetera)

> I want to compile this under Solaris/x86 with gcc 2.8.1, I don't have
> egcs. Can anyone tell me how the CCFLAGS and the DEFINES should be
> changed ? Any helpful comment greatly appreciated.

> enkidu

run ./configure

by **Philip Bro** » Sat, 15 Jan 2000 04:00:00

>>CC = egcs
>>C++ = egcs
>>LINK = egcs

>Change these from `egcs' to `gcc'.
>You should also upgrade to GCC 2.95.2 while you're at it.
>2.8.1 is getting pretty long in the tooth.

a compiler doesnt stop working because it is "old".
2.8.1 works just great. If it aint broke, dont fix it. Because you'll
probably make it worse.

--
[Trim the no-bots from my address to reply to me by email!]
[ Do NOT email-CC me on posts. Pick one or the other.]

The word of the day is mispergitude

by **Barry Margoli** » Sat, 15 Jan 2000 04:00:00

>>>CC = egcs
>>>C++ = egcs
>>>LINK = egcs

>>Change these from `egcs' to `gcc'.
>>You should also upgrade to GCC 2.95.2 while you're at it.
>>2.8.1 is getting pretty long in the tooth.

>a compiler doesnt stop working because it is "old".

Maybe it does. Sometimes old versions of applications aren't fully
compatible with new versions of operating systems.

Quote:>2.8.1 works just great. If it aint broke, dont fix it. Because you'll
>probably make it worse.

Are you asserting that none of the changes from 2.8.1 to 2.95.2 have been
bug fixes? If it works just as well as when it was new, that includes all
the old bugs.

I checked the ChangeLog that came with the version we're running here
(2.7.2 -- I know, it's even longer in the tooth). Between 2.7.0 and 2.7.2
there were about 500 changes, and from a quick scan it looks like they were
mostly bug fixes, although most of them only applied to specific target
environments, so they don't affect all users. But if there were that many
fixes in two sub-point releases, I expect there were many more in 87 point
releases. Four years is a long time in software time.

--

GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Burlington, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.

by **hume.spamfil..** » Sat, 15 Jan 2000 04:00:00

: 2.8.1 works just great. If it aint broke, dont fix it. Because you'll
: probably make it worse.

There is software out there already (notably MySQL) that will not build on
2.8.1 or below.

--
Brandon Hume - hume -> BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca, http://WWW.BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca/
-> Solaris Snob and general NOCMonkey

by **Philip Bro** » Tue, 18 Jan 2000 04:00:00

>>a compiler doesnt stop working because it is "old".

>>2.8.1 works just great. If it aint broke, dont fix it. Because you'll
>>probably make it worse.

>Are you asserting that none of the changes from 2.8.1 to 2.95.2 have been
>bug fixes? If it works just as well as when it was new, that includes all
>the old bugs.

I initially tried 2.95 on solaris intel.
It compiled something WRONG. Even without -O.
I will never, ever use 2.95 for anything I care about.

--
[Trim the no-bots from my address to reply to me by email!]
[ Do NOT email-CC me on posts. Pick one or the other.]

The word of the day is mispergitude

by **Philip Bro** » Tue, 18 Jan 2000 04:00:00

>: 2.8.1 works just great. If it aint broke, dont fix it. Because you'll
>: probably make it worse.

>There is software out there already (notably MySQL) that will not build on
>2.8.1 or below.

jeez. some authors need a serious boot to the head, if they can't write
code to ANSI spec.

Or I suppose it's some over-the-top C++ use of templates, etc?

I wouldn't think C++ is the best choice of language for writing a database.
Great for design concepts, but not when it comes to memory compactness,
etc.

Unless you are using just very basic stuff. In which case, it should
compile with 2.8.1, eh?

--
[Trim the no-bots from my address to reply to me by email!]
[ Do NOT email-CC me on posts. Pick one or the other.]

The word of the day is mispergitude

by **Ron Natali** » Tue, 18 Jan 2000 04:00:00

> >There is software out there already (notably MySQL) that will not build on
> >2.8.1 or below.

> jeez. some authors need a serious boot to the head, if they can't write
> code to ANSI spec.

If they code to ANSI spec, that's probably why they need 2.8.2. GCC
wasn't very compliant before (at least it's trying now).

Quote:> I wouldn't think C++ is the best choice of language for writing a database.
> Great for design concepts, but not when it comes to memory compactness,
> etc.

I don't know why you'd make that statement. There's no reason why
it's anyworse than C for this (shares the same backend with GCC anyhow).

by **Philip Bro** » Tue, 18 Jan 2000 04:00:00

>> I wouldn't think C++ is the best choice of language for writing a database.
>> Great for design concepts, but not when it comes to memory compactness,
>> etc.

>I don't know why you'd make that statement. There's no reason why
>it's anyworse than C for this (shares the same backend with GCC anyhow).

There is intrinsic overhead to various types of class handling, blah blah,
that is not present in plain C coding, unless the compiler inlines
ALL the C++ stuff. Which is rather uncommon.
I dont remember all the details.
See a compiler specialist if you want more specifics :-)

--
[Trim the no-bots from my address to reply to me by email!]
[ Do NOT email-CC me on posts. Pick one or the other.]

The word of the day is mispergitude

by **Ron Natali** » Tue, 18 Jan 2000 04:00:00

> >> I wouldn't think C++ is the best choice of language for writing a database.
> >> Great for design concepts, but not when it comes to memory compactness,
> >> etc.

> >I don't know why you'd make that statement. There's no reason why
> >it's anyworse than C for this (shares the same backend with GCC anyhow).

> There is intrinsic overhead to various types of class handling, blah blah,
> that is not present in plain C coding, unless the compiler inlines
> ALL the C++ stuff. Which is rather uncommon.
> I dont remember all the details.
> See a compiler specialist if you want more specifics :-)

I know the specifics, it's clear that you don't have a clue.
Inlining has little to do with it. You're just spreading
groundless claims.

by **Philip Bro** » Tue, 18 Jan 2000 04:00:00

>...
>I know the specifics, it's clear that you don't have a clue.
>Inlining has little to do with it. You're just spreading
>groundless claims.

Oh? So which major C++ compiler have you written?

--
[Trim the no-bots from my address to reply to me by email!]
[ Do NOT email-CC me on posts. Pick one or the other.]

The word of the day is mispergitude

by **Bryan Althau** » Wed, 19 Jan 2000 04:00:00

:>>> I wouldn't think C++ is the best choice of language for writing a database.
:>>> Great for design concepts, but not when it comes to memory compactness,
:>>> etc.
:>>
:>>I don't know why you'd make that statement. There's no reason why
:>>it's anyworse than C for this (shares the same backend with GCC anyhow).
:>
:> There is intrinsic overhead to various types of class handling, blah blah,
:> that is not present in plain C coding, unless the compiler inlines
:> ALL the C++ stuff. Which is rather uncommon.
:> I dont remember all the details.
:> See a compiler specialist if you want more specifics :-)

: I know the specifics, it's clear that you don't have a clue.
: Inlining has little to do with it. You're just spreading
: groundless claims.

The day people understand the C++ tradeoffs, is the day people stop using C.

by **Steve Bellen** » Wed, 19 Jan 2000 04:00:00

Quote:>The day people understand the C++ tradeoffs, is the day people stop using C.

I don't think so, one of the C++ tradeoffs is being vastly more complex
than C. Understanding this tradeoff can leave you still programming in C.
--
http://www.math.fsu.edu/~bellenot
bellenot <At/> math.fsu.edu
+1.850.644.7189 (4053fax)

by **Casper H.S. Dik - Network Security Engine** » Wed, 19 Jan 2000 04:00:00

[[ PLEASE DON'T SEND ME EMAIL COPIES OF POSTINGS ]]

>The day people understand the C++ tradeoffs, is the day people stop using C.

I think you wanted to say:

The day people understand the C++ tradeoffs, is the day people stop using C++.

:-)
--
Expressed in this posting are my opinions. They are in no way related
to opinions held by my employer, Sun Microsystems.
Statements on Sun products included here are not gospel and may
be fiction rather than truth.

Very Computer

EGCS vs GCC

EGCS vs GCC

EGCS vs GCC

EGCS vs GCC

EGCS vs GCC

EGCS vs GCC

EGCS vs GCC

EGCS vs GCC

EGCS vs GCC

EGCS vs GCC

EGCS vs GCC

EGCS vs GCC

EGCS vs GCC

EGCS vs GCC

EGCS vs GCC

EGCS vs GCC