Re: gcc vs egcs

[J.H.M. Dassen]

On Tue, Jan 19, 1999 at 14:50:43 -0800, G. Crimp wrote:
>   The egcs versions of gcc and g++ are not both yet ready for prime
> time.  I may get corrected on this,

Indeed.

> but I think it is gcc that still has some bugs,

Wrong. To quote /usr/doc/gcc/README.Debian:
:- FSF gcc 2.7.2.x provides a reliable C compiler that has been used in the
:  development of the 2.0.x (stable) series of Linux kernels (from which the
:  Debian 2.1 default kernel is derived).
:  The optimisation behaviour of egcs gcc is different and has caused egcs
:  gcc-compiled 2.0.x kernels not to function properly [*]; therefore we need
:  an FSF gcc 2.7.2.x C compiler.
:
:[*] If you insist on using egcs gcc, gcc 2.8.1 or PGCC for compiling 2.0.x
:kernels, you can find patches for the problems that have been found so
:far at http://www.suse.de/~florian/kernel+egcs.html .

This is a problem in the kernel source, not in EGCS gcc. The 2.0.x kernel
source makes unjustified assumptions abouth the compiler's optimisation
behaviour which are only valid with FSF gcc 2.7.2.x, not with EGCS gcc or
FSF gcc 2.8.x .

Once the 2.2.x kernel series is rolling, we'll switch to EGCS for C
compilation too in "unstable", so future Debian versions will use EGCS as
the default compiler for C, C++, Objective-C etc.

Ray
-- 
POPULATION EXPLOSION  Unique in human experience, an event which happened 
yesterday but which everyone swears won't happen until tomorrow.  
- The Hipcrime Vocab by Chad C. Mulligan 

Re: gcc vs egcs

[G. Crimp]

On Tue, Jan 19, 1999 at 04:54:19PM -0500, fantumn Steven Baker" wrote:

Hi Steve,

Glad to see you are still amongst the ranks of Debian users.  I am
not the most knowledgable person on this subject, but when I say the name
fantumn, I couldn't resist answering.  You might get a better answer from
someone else, but I will give it a try.  Apparently, gcc and g++ development
became fragmented as developers split into a number of camps.  GNU gcc and
g++ development (Deb gcc and g++ were the GNU versions) has halted, or at
least slowed to a trickle.  egcs is a movement to bring back together the
various gcc/g++ development streams.

The egcs versions of gcc and g++ are not both yet ready for prime
time.  I may get corrected on this, but I think it is gcc that still has
some bugs, so Deb (2.0 at least) is still using GNU gcc.  g++ on Deb is now
the egcs version.  So I don't think it is a question of one "sucks" and the
other doesn't.  It is more a case of c and c++ compiler development moving
to egcs 'cause that is where development is happening.

You might want to check out the Deb mailing list archives to get
more informative detail than I can give.

Yours from Victoria,

Gerald

> Okay, I don't want to start a holy war or anything here, but I have some
> questions about egcs and gcc.
> 
> First, was wondering _what_ the differences between gcc and egcs were.
> 
> (Note: when I say gcc, I mean gcc _and_ g++)
> 
> Compatibility:  First, can egcs compile everything that gcc can?  IE: kernel?
> Also, is g++ incapable of compiling programs written for compilation with 
> egcs?
> (ie: Berlin)...
> 
> Please include your own opinions, but please don't just say (egcs|gcc) sucks,
> and not provide reason.  Sure, "(egcs|gcc) sucks because..." is acceptable.
> 
> Thanks in advance...
> 
> -fantumn
> 
> 
> -- 
> Unsubscribe?  mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] < /dev/null
> 

Re: gcc vs egcs

[Henning Makholm]

Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 19 Jan 1999, fantumn (Steven Baker) wrote:

> > First, was wondering _what_ the differences between gcc and egcs were.

> It is mostly a matter of version

Somewhere in /usr/doc/gcc (sorry, don't remember exactly where) I
found a recommendation about not to try to share object code between
egcs and gcc.

Now, I understand that this is good advice as regards C++ interfaces,
but it is true that I shouldn't link .o's from eg++ with .o's from
gcc, where the latter ones use purely C interfaces?

Aren't C calling conventions and C struct layouts, etc. supposed
to remain stable across compilers for the same architecture?

-- 
Henning Makholm
http://www.diku.dk/students/makholm

Re: gcc vs egcs

[J.H.M. Dassen]

On Wed, Jan 20, 1999 at 11:16:32 +0100, Conrado Badenas wrote:
> What "egcs" means?

It used to mean Experimental GCC Compiler Suite, though AFAIK it's not
expanded anywhere on the EGCS website (http://egcs.cygnus.com) anymore.

> If both gcc and egcs are developed by GNU, why they are missynchronized
> (sorry for the recursive misspelling) ?

See http://egcs.cygnus.com/faq.html#gcc-2-diff

> Should I install egcs-doc and read the docs?

They perform the same function as gcc-docs for gcc: document the compiler.
They do not address the history of the project, current development etc.
much (if at all).

HTH,
Ray
-- 
Obsig: developing a new sig

Re: gcc vs egcs

[Conrado Badenas]

Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> Debian uses eg++ for our g++ because 2.7 is effectively useless (it
> encourages code that will not work on other C++ compilers) and we use 2.7
> for our gcc because nobody has patched the 2.0 kernels to work with
> another gcc. Effectively 2.7.* is dead and all development is focused on
> egcs - apparently the gcc people will take code from egcs to create the
> next gcc releases or something.

What "egcs" means?
gcc is for GNU C Compiler, egcc is for GNU (egcs) C Compiler. But, does
the "g" from "egcs" come from "GNU" ?
If both gcc and egcs are developed by GNU, why they are missynchronized
(sorry for the recursive misspelling) ?

Should I install egcs-doc and read the docs?

-- 
Conrado Badenas (Assistant Lecturer)
Department of Thermodynamics. University of Valencia
c/. Doctor Moliner, 50   | e-m: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
46100 Burjassot (Valencia)   | Phn: +34-63864350
SPAIN| Fax: +34-63983385

Re: gcc vs egcs

[Christophe Broult]

Mark Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> [1  ]
> On Tue, Jan 19, 1999 at 02:49:17PM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
> > On Tue, 19 Jan 1999 14:58:29 -0700 (MST), Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> 
> > >for our gcc because nobody has patched the 2.0 kernels to work with
> > >another gcc.
> 
> > Do the 2.2 kernels compile with egcs?
> 
> As of somewhere in the 2.1 series Linux kernels should work with egcs.

I've been using an egcc compiled 2.1 kernel for a few months now and
the 2.2.0-pre serie works with no problem when compiled with egcc.

Chris

-- 
Looking for a cutting edge   | Christophe Broult
software validation technology?  | 
Check http://www.info.unicaen.fr/lpv | ``Smile, chuckle, giggle''

Re: gcc vs egcs

[Mark Brown]

On Tue, Jan 19, 1999 at 02:49:17PM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jan 1999 14:58:29 -0700 (MST), Jason Gunthorpe wrote:

> >for our gcc because nobody has patched the 2.0 kernels to work with
> >another gcc.

> Do the 2.2 kernels compile with egcs?

As of somewhere in the 2.1 series Linux kernels should work with egcs.

-- 
Mark Brown  mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]   (Trying to avoid grumpiness)
http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~broonie/
EUFShttp://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/filmsoc/


pgpUMmh86hqZE.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: gcc vs egcs

[Hernan Joel Cervantes Rodriguez]

binWATVpeuW5K.bin
Description: Binary data

Re: gcc vs egcs

[Steve Lamb]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Tue, 19 Jan 1999 14:58:29 -0700 (MST), Jason Gunthorpe wrote:

>for our gcc because nobody has patched the 2.0 kernels to work with
>another gcc.

Do the 2.2 kernels compile with egcs?


- -- 
 Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
 ICQ: 5107343  | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
- ---+-
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: PGPsdk version 1.0 (C) 1997 Pretty Good Privacy, Inc

iQA/AwUBNqUL7Xpf7K2LbpnFEQK9UQCcCvrHK2WGAeXphIEPJxu3wujoP98AoJpT
n+6lXqc9uYFpJLQAcwWsFD6P
=sXD/
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: gcc vs egcs

[Jason Gunthorpe]

On Tue, 19 Jan 1999, fantumn (Steven Baker) wrote:

> Okay, I don't want to start a holy war or anything here, but I have some
> questions about egcs and gcc.
> 
> First, was wondering _what_ the differences between gcc and egcs were.

It is mostly a matter of version
  gcc 2.7.* has been used forever and some code tweaks some bugs init
  g++ 2.7.* is a non-ansi C++ compiler and some code uses ansi C++
features or g++ 2.7 specific featurs
  gcc 2.8 is a new gcc release that is seemingly becoming widely used on
non-linux platforms (at least my univ has upgraded every machine)
it is mostly compatible with 2.7.* but cannot compile a 2.0 kernel at a
high optimization level (the inline ASM in 2.0 relied on things 2.7
did)
  g++ 2.8 is a more than 2.7 ansi conforming C++ compiler, and again code
written with 2.8 probably doesn't work with 2.7
  egcc  is gcc 2.9-BETA (or 3.0-BETA) in effect, it supports
more/less platforms and has more optimizations and other things
  eg++ is like egcc and is largely compatible with g++ 2.8 however it
implements even more of the C++ standard (still not all :<)

Debian uses eg++ for our g++ because 2.7 is effectively useless (it
encourages code that will not work on other C++ compilers) and we use 2.7
for our gcc because nobody has patched the 2.0 kernels to work with
another gcc. Effectively 2.7.* is dead and all development is focused on
egcs - apparently the gcc people will take code from egcs to create the
next gcc releases or something. 

Jason