home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!europa.asd.contel.com!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!news.acns.nwu.edu!network.ucsd.edu!ucsbcsl!foxtrot.ccmrc.ucsb.edu
- From: doug@foxtrot.ccmrc.ucsb.edu (Douglas Scott)
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.programmer
- Subject: Re: Replacing NeXT cc with gcc-2.2.2
- Message-ID: <5583@ucsbcsl.ucsb.edu>
- Date: 31 Aug 92 19:09:09 GMT
- References: <1992Aug31.164909.7198@fcom.cc.utah.edu>
- Sender: root@ucsbcsl.ucsb.edu
- Reply-To: doug@foxtrot.ccmrc.ucsb.edu
- Distribution: usa
- Lines: 64
-
- In article <1992Aug31.164909.7198@fcom.cc.utah.edu> swillden@news.ccutah.edu
- (Shawn Willden) writes:
- ] Hi, I have a few questions about replacing cc with gcc (I have NeXTStep 2.0,
- BTW)
- ]
- ] 1) I understand that the newest version of gcc incorporates NeXT's
- ] Objective-C extensions. Is gcc lacking anything? Is NeXT making any new
- ] additions to their compiler for 3.0 that may not be present in the current
- ] version of gcc?
- ]
- I seem to remember hearing that there were some problems with compiling NeXT
- Apps using gcc in Obj-C mode, but the postings were a long time ago, and since
- then I have seen no references to them. The NeXT 3.0 compiler will be a
- tradeoff: it is based on gcc/g++ 1.92 (or something close) with NeXT
- additions, most especially in the preprocessor, which allows NeXT to use a new
- type of # directive in its header files which will probably choke gcc. Other
- than that, we can only hope that the people at NeXT were able to iron out the
- innumerable bugs and problems that were present in the source for gcc 1.9!
-
- ] 2) How complete is gcc's implementation of C++? Does it support templates
- ] as described in _The C++ Programming Language 2nd Ed._ (by Bjarne
- Stroustrup)? I
- ] know it doesn't support exceptions (yet).
- ]
- Template support is there, but still needs some work (at least from what I see
- in terms of posted problems). This seems to be getting better with each
- version.
-
- ] 3) How stable is 2.2.2?
- ]
- Not really a very useful way to ask the question, but in general it is pretty
- good. It is far superior to the modified 1.39 compiler that comes on the 2.1
- NeXT. However, you should be prepared to upgrade the 2.2.2 compiler to each
- subsequent release. More problems are fixed than new ones appear, so it has
- always been advantageous to move to the new version ASAP.
-
- ] 4) How standard are the libg++ libraries? (i.e. how closely do they track
- ] the work of the ANSI C++ committee? [In implementation, not content, ANSI
- ] hasn't/isn't going to specify standard libraries, right?])
- ]
- Since implementation in C++ is basically the public interface, I would say that
- it tracks fairly well. Of course, most of the library classes have no analogue
- in ANSI-land.
-
- ] 5) Is 2.2.2 compatible with the NeXT gdb or would I have to get gdb-4.6 as
- ] well?
- ]
- No and no. You cannot use the NeXT gdb (except to get backtraces), and you
- cannot build gdb 4.6 (or any other version) on the NeXT. This is a big minus,
- but I refuse to go back to the outdated native C++ compiler.
-
- ] I would greatly appreciate answers and/or experiences from anyone who has had
- ] experience with gcc-2.2.2.
- ]
- I have been using it on both my NeXT and on our Sun since the day it was
- released. I am very satisfied, and given the alternatives (old NeXT version or
- expensive commercial version) I am quite willing to do the work to upgrade
- and/or patch the code as problems are discovered and fixed.
-
- --
- Douglas Scott (805)893-8352
- Center for Computer Music Research and Composition
- University of California, Santa Barbara
- Internet: (NeXTMail ok) <doug@foxtrot.ccmrc.ucsb.edu>
-