Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!jarthur!nntp-server.caltech.edu!tll From: tll@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Tal Lewis Lancaster) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer Subject: Re: DICE vs GCC Message-ID: <1991Apr4.180217.19773@nntp-server.caltech.edu> Date: 4 Apr 91 18:02:17 GMT References: <9104021420.AA10848@thunder.LakeheadU.Ca> <1991Apr4.034920.16298@marlin.jcu.edu.au> Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena Lines: 78 cpca@marlin.jcu.edu.au (Colin Adams) writes: >In article <9104021420.AA10848@thunder.LakeheadU.Ca> tjhayko@THUNDER.LAKEHEADU.CA writes: >> >> >>This may not be the correct newsgroups to post this, so if it >>isn't, please just ignore it. >> >> >>What are the merits of Matt Dillon's DICE over the current ver- >>sion of GNU C for AmigaDOS? I know about the memory require- >>ments, but I want to know from a programmers point of view which >>is better. The majority of my experience with C programming has >>been under Unix and VMS. I've used GNU C running on our Suns >>here, and it seems quite good. How does the Amiga port compare? >>How does DICE compare to GNU C on (Suns or Amigas) ? Also, are >>there any plans to port gdb to the Amiga? I'm used to using dbx >>or gdb under Unix, and I miss that sort of thing when I'm pro- >>gramming on my Amiga. I'd really prefer to go the route of >>shareware or something like GNU C, but if SAS/C is really a >>better choice, I'll go with it. Just let me know you opinions on >>each option. Sorry if this seems a little jumbled, the cat de- >>cided that last night was not the time for me to sleep. Thanks in >>advance. >> >Well it depends on what you are doing. I am writing a large >program (>20,000 lines code) and tried using several compilers, >GCC, DICE and SAS C. Well DICE is probably a lot better now, >but the early version I had (non-registered) was unusable >(sorry Matt :-) ), as it would fall to pieces on syntax >errors etc., and GCC was too buggy for any large project. >SAS C is very good, quite stable (Only discovered 2 major >bugs) and generates good code. If you are doing a BIG project >I'd go with SAS C, but DICE would be good for anything smaller >and GCC if you're really desperate (unless something >dramatic has happenned, like it is now able to produce >Amiga object files etc.). What version of gcc did you use? I wouldn't say gcc is bug free but I have found it more stable for my project than SAS or Aztec. And I have been producing 1.4 M executables with it! So I wouldn't say gcc can't handle large projects. Because I am doing things that just can't be done with SAS or Aztec. (I think DICE would fit my needs too but I have been too cheep and too busy to send Matt the 40 bucks for a full version of his compiler). Have you tried gcc's "-b -c" combination? This produces Amiga object files. SAS does have one of the better debuggers I have seen. But its other tools are geared more for small projects. For example its make is really stupid and forces duplication. Not only are many of its other tools limited my the OS command length limit many don't accept input files. Their Cxref program is one such an example. What is the purpose of such a program if you can only cross reference a set of files < 255 characters? And CPR can only handle a command line length of ~160. In defence to SAS, I think may of these problems that I have mentioned will be fixed in their next release. >>********************************************************** >>* Tom Hayko * Call The Amiga Showroom * >>* tjhayko@thunder.lakeheadu.ca * 807-344-7460 80MB online* >>* tjhayko@LAKEHEAD.BITNET * NOTE: I'm not the sysop * >>********************************************************** >> >> >> >>QUIT >-- >Colin Adams >Computer Science Department James Cook University >Internet : cpca@marlin.jcu.edu.au North Queensland >'And on the eight day, God created Manchester' Tal Lancaster tll@tybalt.caltech.edu