Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uunet!wuarchive!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!uxa.cso.uiuc.edu!jb10320
From: jb10320@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Desdinova)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2
Subject: Re: Q: Orca/C vs APW C include file parsing
Keywords: ORCA, APW, C
Message-ID: <1990Aug18.211344.24877@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: 18 Aug 90 21:13:44 GMT
References: <792@dg.dg.com>
Sender: usenet@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (News)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Lines: 51

In article <792@dg.dg.com> bkahn@archive.rtp.dg.com (Bruce Kahn) writes:
>
>  Ok, Im back w/another C question.  I have Orca/C 1.1b9 (the upgrade is 'in
>the mail') and want to compile C written (and compiled) under APW C.  If
>I #include the file stdlib.h with Orca/C I get the error:
>
>39:  void *bsearch(void *key, void *base, size_t count, size_t size, 
>        int (*compar) (const void *p1, const void *p2));
>                      ^ ) expected
>
>  Im assuming that since this is a standard include file that the routines
>SHOULD be parsable by the compiler (silly me I know).  Has anyone else ever
>used stdlib.h with Orca/C and NOT had this problem??

I have not had this problem (with either 1.1b9 or 1.1 final release).
You're not trying to compile the APW headers with ORCA, are you?  I don't know
what would cause that error, except that 1.1b9 is very very messed up.  You 
might just wait for your upgrade.

>  Under the same token (no pun intended), will APW C allow you to, in an
>include file, declare a variable as 'extern int Flag_A' and then within 
>the source code redeclare it as 'int Flag_A' w/o choking??  Is this 'legal'
>by ANSI C definitions?

Last I checked, APW didn't follow ANSI specs ('course the last APW I saw was
1.0b4, about a year and a half before they finished it).  I know that ORCA
follows ANSI (pretty much) and allows the above example.

>  And finally (ok 4 questions) can anyone tell me the differences between
>the APW C and Orca/C compilers (ie: APW C has string.h and Orca/C has
>strings.h)?

Well, to start out wish, APW hasn't had the same code generation bug through
two commercial releases (my main gripe with ORCA), but if you're at all
interested in compiling Unix software on your GS then ORCA is definitely the
way to go.  It's more standardized than APW (again, I haven't seen an APW
for over a year).  ORCA is _FAST_. With a transwarp it would kill Turbo C
on a 12MHz AT. (well, maybe not quite- I haven't run Turbo on my AT yet...)
ORCA produces _SMALL_ code- small as they come on the 65816.

Maybe someone can extol APW's virtues.  Do I have any volunteers?
(APW is definitely more bug-free, for one thing).
>
>                                            Bruce (bkahn@archive.rtp.dg.com or
>                                                   kahn@adam.dg.com)

--
Jawaid Bazyar               | This message was posted to thousands of machines
Junior/Computer Engineering | throughout the entire civilized world. It cost
jb10320@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu    | the net hundreds, maybe thousands of dollars,
                            | to send everywhere.