NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #19/NN_1992_19.iso/spool/comp/sys/sgi/13265

Internet Message Format | 1992-09-03 | 1.6 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!sgigate!odin!twilight!triton.wpd.sgi.com!wsj
From: [e-mail] (Bill Johnson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.sgi
Subject: Re: 3.10 Based C++/Fortran 77
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 3 Sep 92 23:20:29 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] ( CNews Account at twilight.wpd.sgi.com )
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Lines: 21

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Alek O. Komarnitsky) writes:
|> OK, so if I understand correctly, the difference between the 2.x and 3.x
|> compilers is that they generate better R4000 code, but there is nothing
|> wrong with using the 2.x compilers (?)  I'm a bit leary of putting the 3.x
|> compilers on - reference recent posting about C++ bug. BTW, is there any
|> easy way to run both simultaneousely?

In general, you'll find the 3.10 compilers to be significantly more reliable
than the 2.20 compilers.  There is no easy way to run both simultaneously.
Mixing and matching 2.20 pieces with 3.10 pieces will not work, in general.

|> WRT C++, what version of AT&T cfront/etc. is the 3.10 release based upon?
|> If not AT&TC++3.0, is there any timetable when that will become available?

As bean already indicated, the 3.10 C++ is based upon AT&TC++3.0; AT&TC++2.1
is still available by using CC -v2.

--
Bill Johnson                    9U-530                   [e-mail]
Silicon Graphics, Inc.                             Office:[phone]
Systems Software Technology Center                    Fax:[phone]