Xref: utzoo comp.sys.att:7599 comp.unix.wizards:18213
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!vsi!friedl
From: friedl@vsi.COM (Stephen J. Friedl)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.att,comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: CPLU4.2 vs C-FP+
Keywords: C 3B2 AT&T
Message-ID: <1181@vsi.COM>
Date: 17 Sep 89 18:25:40 GMT
References: <1764@cooper.cooper.EDU>
Organization: V-Systems, Inc. -- Santa Ana, CA
Lines: 42

In article <1764@cooper.cooper.EDU>, hak@cooper.cooper.EDU (Jeff Hakner ) writes:
> 	Our 3B2/400s are running an ATT C compiler called C-FP+,
> which is about three years old.

C-FP+ was indeed the first compiler that would deal with the MAU,
but the generated code *required* the MAU.  While -Kmau mode of
CPLU4.2 generates these direct coprocessor instructions as well,
the optimizer of 4.2 is better so C-FP++ is probably obsolete
by now.

> 	1) What's the story with C-FP+

I've heard no official word, but they can't be selling it
anymore.  CPLU4.2 does everything C-FP+ does and more.

> 	2) Does CPLU4.2 support hardware floating point 

Absolutely, with the -Kmau compiler flag.

> 	3) Does CPLU4.2 support ANSI C (such as function prototypes),
> 			which C-FP+ does not.

No, not at all.  None of the currently-released compilers
support anything related to ANSI.  We won't see an ANSI
compiler for the 3B2 until Sys V Release 4.0 comes out
with C Issue 5, but it's unlikely to be available for 
Release 3 or 2.

> 	4) How is it?  Buggy?  Good?  Tolerable?

We like 4.2 a lot.  We've found no bugs, and the HALO optimizer
is really an improvement over the 4.1 version.

     Steve


Disclaimer: I don't speak for V-Systems
-- 
Stephen J. Friedl / V-Systems, Inc.  /  Santa Ana, CA  / +1 714 545 6442 
3B2-kind-of-guy   / {attmail uunet}!vsi!{bang!}friedl  /  friedl@vsi.com

"This posting is a word to the wise, but you can read it too" - me