home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer
- Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!torn!utgpu!engb
- From: engb@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Ben Eng)
- Subject: Amiga C Compilers [Was: Random tidbits regarding WOC & A4000]
- Message-ID: <Bun5F9.B8K@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca>
- Organization: Jet Penguin Lavatories
- References: <1992Sep13.123712.26927@marlin.jcu.edu.au> <1992Sep13.142648.22104@NeoSoft.com> <1624@lysator.liu.se> <1992Sep13.212413.9772@NeoSoft.com> <1627@lysator.liu.se> <BuKsC7.3to@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> <1638@lysator.liu.se>
- Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 22:35:32 GMT
- Lines: 30
-
- In <1638@lysator.liu.se> boberg@lysator.liu.se (Stefan Boberg) writes:
-
- >engb@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Ben Eng) writes:
-
- >>In <1627@lysator.liu.se> boberg@lysator.liu.se (Stefan Boberg) writes:
-
- >>> Me too. As it is right now the only good compiler for the Amiga appears
- >>>to be SAS/C (and GCC, but it's hardly usable).
-
- >>Why do you say that gcc is hardly usable?
-
- > I didn't mean that GCC was bad, just that I don't consider it a "real"
- >Amiga compiler.
-
- >But I still think SAS/C is
- >better for native Amiga development.
-
- I would have to agree with you on that one. gcc (in its present form)
- is basically unusable without linking in Wild's standard library, which
- relies on ixemul.library. You can't really expect to develop a
- commercial product (or even many freeware products) that relies on this
- kind of overhead. I like ixemul.library--I would just never want to
- distribute software that relies on it (due to its size, its
- non-Amiga "spirit", etc). It's fine for inhouse stuff though.
-
- Ben
- --
- e-mail: engb@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca or ben@jetpen.gts.org (Ben Eng)
- UofT EngSci 9T2 ``We are all masochists here.''
- Home: (416)-979-8761, (416)-979-7885
-