Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!munnari.oz.au!brolga!bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au!marlin.jcu.edu.au!cpca
From: cpca@marlin.jcu.edu.au (Colin Adams)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer
Subject: Re: DICE vs GCC
Message-ID: <1991Apr5.030228.28756@marlin.jcu.edu.au>
Date: 5 Apr 91 03:02:28 GMT
Article-I.D.: marlin.1991Apr5.030228.28756
References: <9104021420.AA10848@thunder.LakeheadU.Ca> <1991Apr4.034920.16298@marlin.jcu.edu.au> <1991Apr4.180217.19773@nntp-server.caltech.edu>
Organization: James Cook University of North Queensland
Lines: 69

In article <1991Apr4.180217.19773@nntp-server.caltech.edu> tll@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Tal Lewis Lancaster) writes:
>cpca@marlin.jcu.edu.au (Colin Adams) writes:
>
>>In article <9104021420.AA10848@thunder.LakeheadU.Ca> tjhayko@THUNDER.LAKEHEADU.CA writes:
>>>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
>
>>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?

A really early one (can't remember the number), it was just after
it was first announced on the net.  It needed heaps of RAM and was
rather slow....

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.

yes, 1.4M executable is bigger than my small 250k exec. but I'm working
to get it smaller not bigger :-)

  Because I am doing things that just can't be done with SAS or Aztec.

Why not?

>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.

The SAS debugger is pretty good. I have found the make utility to be
ok, once you set it up it works fine. 

  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.

Hmmm. Never had to use Cxref or CPR (it takes too long to compile 43+
files with debugging options on to bother), but that sound's pretty
restrictive.

Still SAS is good enough for me.

>Tal Lancaster
>tll@tybalt.caltech.edu


-- 
Colin Adams                                  
Computer Science Department                     James Cook University 
Internet : cpca@marlin.jcu.edu.au               North Queensland
'And on the eight day, God created Manchester'