Xref: utzoo comp.unix.i386:6398 comp.unix.xenix:12286 comp.sys.att:9908 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcsun!ukc!dcl-cs!aber-cs!odin!pcg From: pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) Newsgroups: comp.unix.i386,comp.unix.xenix,comp.sys.att Subject: Re: Xenix vs. UNIX Message-ID: Date: 30 Jun 90 21:11:29 GMT References: <3304@crash.cts.com> <4716@thebes.Thalatta.COM> <1990Jun27.232700.3046@virtech.uucp> <223@iphase.UUCP> Sender: pcg@aber-cs.UUCP Organization: Coleg Prifysgol Cymru Lines: 26 In-reply-to: floydf@iphase.UUCP's message of 28 Jun 90 23:22:48 GMT Posting-Front-End: GNU Emacs 18.55.4 of Thu Nov 23 1989 on athene (berkeley-unix) In article <223@iphase.UUCP> floydf@iphase.UUCP (Floyd Ferguson ENG) writes: In article <1990Jun27.232700.3046@virtech.uucp>cpcahil@virtech.uucp (Conor P. Cahill) writes: > SCO UNIX (with its inclusion of the standard AT&T compiler) should alleviate > many of these problems. In my opinion the C compiler situation in SCO is THE most unsatisfactory part of the package. Including rcc (Real C) barely makes up for the I understand that rcc stands for Register C Compiler, the successor to pcc, the Portable C Compiler. On other versions of SystemV/386 it is called cc. While I've successfully compiled gcc and xemacs with rcc, gdb would not go, Well, with GNU software that uses alloca(), it is *vital* to turn off the default inline procedure expansion doen by the optimizer, using option '-W2,-y0' along with the '-O' one. I cannot imagine why ever AT&T put in a very sophisticated optimizer that does tricky things without documenting its zillion options. -- Piercarlo "Peter" Grandi | ARPA: pcg%cs.aber.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk Dept of CS, UCW Aberystwyth | UUCP: ...!mcsun!ukc!aber-cs!pcg Penglais, Aberystwyth SY23 3BZ, UK | INET: pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk