Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!panews.awdpa.ibm.com!bullhead!brunner From: brunner@bullhead.uucp Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.rt Subject: Re: HC 2 Message-ID: <1991Jan4.235750.1688@panews> Date: 4 Jan 91 23:57:50 GMT References: <1990Dec19.140919.4497@athena.mit.edu> <1991Jan4.000714.6440@panews> <1991Jan4.054021.3334@athena.mit.edu> Sender: news@panews (news id) Reply-To: brunner@ibmsupt.UUCP () Organization: IBM AWD Palo Alto Lines: 49 In article <1991Jan4.054021.3334@athena.mit.edu> jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F Carr) writes: >In article <1991Jan4.000714.6440@panews> brunner@ibmsupt.UUCP () writes: >>Note that gcc 1.37 is available from >>several sites on the internet, and that 1.38 has been announced and the >>RT is among the supported platforms. > >The "released" version of gcc for the RT is based on 1.35.99 (essentially >the same as 1.36) with many modifications (I put "released" in quotes >becuase this is not an official FSF release). I find hc 2.1y to be a better >compiler: it produces faster, smaller code that has fewer bugs. Neither gcc >1.37 nor gcc 1.38 supports the RT. gcc version 2 will support the RT and >will be a viable alternative to hc (code quality is slightly worse than hc; >this will probably change), but I don't know when it will be released. Thanks for the clarification John, I also got email from Richard Kenner today along the same lines. The error is mine. Richard wrote in part that: The last version for which I updated the patches was 1.36 (really 1.35.99+). That version is available on jim.ultra.nyu.edu (it may have been copied elsewhere). But, from viewpoint, that doesn't work. It has many bugs (it can't correcly compile X11, for example). He also wrote that GCC V2.0 will support the RT, and that it may go into beta test at MIT in a month or so. The RT version has been tested and is used in-house to compile "everything, including X11R4". > >Is there a reason not to make later versions of hc 2.1 available, with the >warning that there are known bugs? hc 2.1y has bugs too; having 2 versions >available increases the chances of finding a compiler that works. > Well, as I described in my posting of yesterday in response to Tim's question, if 2.1z or 2.1A is used to compile the low-level internet code, the resulting .o when linked will yeild a kernel which crashes rather early in the boot process. This is pretty fatal and I was very surprised to find it present in the 2.1A compiler as I'd reported it after finding the cause of failure with the 2.1z version of the compiler. I'm sending John a copy of the 2.1A version, but I won't place it on ibmsupt for general release -- I really wish this bug had been fixed! > John Carr (jfc@athena.mit.edu) #include Eric Brunner, Consultant, IBM AWD Palo Alto (415) 855-4486 inet: brunner@monet.berkeley.edu uucp: uunet!ibmsupt!brunner trying to understand multiprocessing is like having bees live inside your head.