Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!uunet!umbc3!alex From: alex@umbc3.UMD.EDU (Alex S. Crain) Newsgroups: unix-pc.general Subject: Re: Fed up with Gnu CC Message-ID: <1410@umbc3.UMD.EDU> Date: 4 Dec 88 21:49:10 GMT References: <450@manta.pha.pa.us> <12015@cup.portal.com> Reply-To: alex@umbc3.UMD.EDU (Alex S. Crain) Distribution: unix-pc Organization: University of Maryland, Baltimore County Lines: 24 In article <12015@cup.portal.com> thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) writes: >Re: Brant's problems compiling using gcc (esp. 1.31) ... >In one of the GNU-related newsgroups appeared a comment recently that the >optimizer in gcc is "broken" (esp. in 1.31). I think that this discussion mostly related to gcc being umable to compie TeX with -O. This is not a bug, and is fixed by the -fwriteable-strings option to gcc. The same was true with the problems compiling X11.2. >And all the docs accompanying gcc clearly state that gcc is in a "beta" >state until such time as gcc successfully compiles (and permits to run! :-) >a complete "UNIX"(tm) system from the UNIX sources. I would hardly consider UN*X a valid test of anything except perhaps the convoluted C code contest :-). UN*X (at least the Bizerkely code) is extreamly implimentation dependent and relies on specific behavior during compilation with regard to register allocation, etc. UN*X will compile under gcc after someone rewrites alot of it. -- :alex. Systems Programmer nerwin!alex@umbc3.umd.edu UMBC alex@umbc3.umd.edu