Xref: utzoo gnu.g++:1038 comp.lang.c++:8899 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!shelby!csli!keith From: keith@csli.Stanford.EDU (Keith Nishihara) Newsgroups: gnu.g++,comp.lang.c++ Subject: Re: g++/CFront 2.0 Source Compatibility? Message-ID: <14826@csli.Stanford.EDU> Date: 9 Aug 90 14:13:49 GMT References: <32603@cup.portal.com> Sender: keith@csli.Stanford.EDU (Keith Nishihara) Reply-To: Neil Hunt Followup-To: gnu.g++ Organization: Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford U. Lines: 32 In <32603@cup.portal.com> Chewy@cup.portal.com (Paul Frederick Snively) writes: >Hi, y'all! >I'm sure this is a rather stupid question, but I need to know... >To what extent are AT&T CFront 2.0 and g++ source-code compatible? It is generally a good idea to look before you leap. I can't believe you site expires articles so fast that the following four were not available when you posted your question: a Jim D 5 11-Y-03 14 porting tips for c++ b Jim ADCOCK 10 > c George Wu 118 > d Keith Nishihara 79 >> The article by George Wu and my followup (as Keith Nishihara) address your question. In summary, g++ and cfront 2.0 are so similar that with reason- able care you should have no problem. I recently ported a 35000 line application written under g++ on a DecStation to cfront on a Sun. Total time was 10 hours, and most of that was recoding to fix an incompatibility in the event ordering between the X window implementations on the two machines. My advice is to try the port when you have about 5 to 10 k lines of code, learn the in- compatibilities, and then you will have no problem. My impres- sion is that g++ is a more faithful implementation of the implied standard (with extensions discussed in the gnu documentation), however, that is probably because I hit all the problems in the cfront implementation at once. Neil/. Neil%teleos.com@ai.sri.com