On Mon, 12 Apr 1999, Chris Antos wrote:
> don't make definitive statements like that based purely on your own
> speculation.
And yours are not!
> gcc does not support apps greater than 32kb unless you do some fiddling with
> a couple compiler information files. even after that, it cannot support
> greater than 64kb, and realistically you'll start to have locality link
> errors that are impossible to resolve starting somewhere around 56kb.
How many programs require more than 32K? Very few.
> CW's debugger is MUCH better than gdb.
Sounds like opinion to me.
> look around some more, read some objective comparisons. there's more to the
> story than "free!" vs "what, i have to pay money for something?". it's kind
> of silly to say that compilers should inherently be free. i'm not even
> going to address that one.
Talk to GNU.
> gcc has no support. you have a problem? go read a book on compilers and
> then fix the compiler. (yes, gcc has bugs).
Best support has and always will come from users on newsgroups. Most
company Tech Support is WORTHLESS. And that's not just my opinion.
> by the way, do you intend to use floating point? have fun with gcc...
I use floating point and have no problems what-so-ever. I do have a
problem trying to understand some of the whys and wherefores but have no
problem using Floating Point or doubles.
You sound like you are saying that floating point with gcc is not possible
or is difficult. This is another unsubstantiated opinion. Isn't that why
you sent this post in the first place.
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------
Shoot-to-Win
Protect the 2nd Amendment
----------------------------------------------------
