Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!decwrl!nsc!pyramid!csg From: csg@pyramid.pyramid.com (Carl S. Gutekunst) Newsgroups: comp.sys.pyramid Subject: Re: upgrading to OSx 5.od and gnu Message-ID: <129037@pyramid.pyramid.com> Date: 2 Oct 90 16:20:27 GMT References: <1990Sep28.205311.10896@swbatl.sbc.com> Reply-To: csg@pyramid.pyramid.com (Carl S. Gutekunst) Organization: Pyramid Technology Corp., Mountain View, CA Lines: 19 >Has anyone tried to compile gcc-1.37.1 on a Pyramid under OSx 5.0d? I've compiled it here on a 9840 and an MIS 4/2, but targeted for a 68000. I've been quite pleased with it; on many local optimizations it does a better job than the GreenHills C we purchased from Oasys. And I was pleased to see that the large number of portability problems in gcc itself have been resolved. But it does emit bad code more than I'd like at this point. >when attempting to recompile with gcc ( in both universes). OK, maybe I'm just begging to be flamed, but I gotta ask: I can see writing a Pyramid CPU backend for gcc as a fun and useful pedagogical exercise. But why would anyone want to use gcc for production work instead of the Pyramid's native compiler? gcc doesn't generate anywhere near as good code (either local or global), and it has lots more bugs. If you want to write and compile strict ANSI C code, then I could see it; but ANSI C is the exception these days, and it's usually easy to convert to compile with K&R compilers.