8 Apr
2009
8 Apr
'09
3:53 a.m.
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 11:29 PM, Jim Brain <brain at jbrain.com> wrote:
John Floren wrote:
I'd like it if Linux wasn't built around the many weirdnesses of GCC
X.Y.Z, and heaven help you if you want to compile with a non-GCC
compiler.
I've heard tales (from reputable people who have been doing Unix
longer than I've been alive) of not being able to build GCC with
various previous versions.
The toolchain is huge, and the whole thing just seems baroque as hell.
Have I been bitten by any of these things? Well, I have had software
fail to compile for no reason other than having the wrong GCC version
(no, don't remember what software, seems like half of the Linux source
out there won't even compile most of the time), the others, not yet.
However, all the real programming I've done in the last couple years
has been in Plan 9 with the Plan 9 editor, the Plan 9 dialect of C,
and the Plan 9 compilers and linkers (8c, 8l, 6c, 6l, qc, ql, etc.).
I'm rather dreading the MPI programming I'll soon have to do for my
Multi Processor Systems course, which will be POSIX C (with MPI added
in), written in vi or emacs unless I can compile one of my favored
Plan 9 editors on the cluster, and compiled with GCC.
John
--
"I've tried programming Ruby on Rails, following TechCrunch in my RSS
reader, and drinking absinthe. It doesn't work. I'm going back to C,
Hunter S. Thompson, and cheap whiskey." -- Ted Dziuba
GCC is definitely not the most enlightened compiler out there.
Is there some context around that statement?
It seems a pretty solid compiler to me, and I use it on 3 targets, one of
which is a microcontroller.
Jim