On Thu, 7 Jan 1999, James FitzGibbon wrote:
> Personally, I wouldn't use anything but the ANSI C compiler. gcc works
> for compilation, but it doesn't know squat about PA-RISC chips past the
> 1.0 rev. Since then, HP has come out with PA-RISC 1.1, 2.0, and 2.1, each
> with better features. gcc will compile for them, but it doesn't produce
> anywhere near the optimization that HP's compiler does.
Sometimes when you want to compile fancy PD code (important things like
xroaches or s/th like that :), gcc can be helpful. No, in fact it really
can be helpful to compile originally Linux-specific code like
Enlightenment for example.
> I took the gcc road when we moved from FreeBSD to HP-UX because I was
> familiar with it. After 6 months, I had to go and re-port everything over
> when we realized that gcc wasn't going to do it for us long-term. If I
> could give advice to any new HP-UX admin: don't use gcc if you can afford
> the ANSI C compiler. Based on the cost of even the lowest HP workstation,
> that usually isn't a problem.
Yes. Completely right. Only one comment: as long as you don't keep your cc
at an up-to-date patch level you -sooner or later- will experience
problems. So using anything older than A.10.32.16 can turn out to be a
really bad idea. Patches are publicly available for free and will prevent
resulting code from causing unexpected behaviour/failures.
Sorry for the off-topic mail, but maybe someone can need this info when
having to convince a phb to purchase ANSI cc :)
Volker
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volker T. Mueller Albert-Ludwigs-Universitaet Freiburg im Breisgau
Student der Informatik vtmue@??? +49 761 355-03 -80(fax)
--
*** Exim information can be found at
http://www.exim.org/ ***
