NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/comp/os/os2/apps/8339

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-16 | 1.7 KB

Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.apps:8339 comp.os.os2.programmer:6479
Path: sparky!uunet!ukma!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!usc!not-for-mail
From: [e-mail] (Chao-Kuei Hung)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.programmer
Subject: Which gcc is better? (Was: Re: qsort() in gcc does not do indirect sorting?)
Date: 16 Nov 1992 11:08:55 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Lines: 26
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pollux.usc.edu

In article <[e-mail]> I asked the question
of qsort in gcc. In article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] (ochealth) pointed out there were two
problems, namely my compare function did not reflect the case
when two items are equal, and that the linker mysteriously
linked the library function index() for my array index.

Thank you ochealth for helping me out. I still don't quite
understand why it is necessary that the compare function
return 0 when two items are equal as my understanding from
Robert Sedgewick's Algorithm is different. But anyway I would
not like to start discussions more appropriate to some other
group. Here is another question:

How do the two versions of gcc (gcc/2 and emx) compare? I
was not aware there are two versions of gcc until ochealth
pointed out, and I didn't carefully read the documents with
the emx version to find a comparison or even mentioning of
the other version. Could the programming gurus give us a
summary and advice on choosing which one to use? BTW, I am
happy to read that Borland C++ is coming out but wonder if
there is more official and detailed announcement. Thank you
for your comments and suggestions.

Chao-Kuei Hung
[e-mail]