Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!olivea!oliveb!amiga!boing!dale From: dale@boing.UUCP (Dale Luck) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer Subject: Re: Bugginess of compilers (Was: Re: DICE vs GCC) Message-ID: <968@boing.UUCP> Date: 10 Apr 91 15:45:49 GMT References: <9104021420.AA10848@thunder.LakeheadU.Ca> <1991Apr4.034920.16298@marlin.jcu.edu.au> <1991Apr4.180217.19773@nntp-server.caltech.edu> <1991Apr5.030228.28756@marlin.jcu.edu.au> <966@boing.UUCP> <1991Apr7.172821.13328@santra.uucp> Reply-To: dale@boing.UUCP (Dale Luck) Organization: Boing, Milpitas, Ca. Lines: 59 In article <1991Apr7.172821.13328@santra.uucp> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes: > >I find it silly that after that much bad experience with a broken >compiler you still stick with it, especially concerning that there's >an excellent compiler like gcc available with source. All compilers on the Amiga at that time were seriously deficient. Thats why I used the Greenhills C compiler on my Sun to generate my Amiga X11 code. Also as far as I know, gcc comes with zip for library support. > >I don't know how well SAS fixes bugs, but if the compiler as buggy as >you tell and it still takes several revisions to get the bugs fixed, >sounds like the FSF makes a lot better job at it. >Also, with gcc you >have the alternative of fixing the possible bugs yourself; you are not >the mercy of the compiler vendor with the only remedy to just 'hope' >that they will fix the bugs. We don't wish to be in the business of fixing compiler bugs, that's why we pay for commercial software; so we have someone we can call up on the phone and complain to or send email. Usually there is a way to code around the problem until the bug is actually fixed. SAS has shown an immense improvement in support in the last 2 years. >Using gcc on the amiga of course might require writing some libraries >which are usually provided by the Amiga compiler vendors; some of this >has been done (freely distributable, also) - but I'd suspect that >doing that wouldn't be as hard as struggling to get perfectly working >code thru a broken compiler. a) The compilers are not as broken as they used to be. b) We make use of lot's of functions in the library. Again we are not in the business of writing a C support library when there exists good enough libraries out there. We feel that SAS/c for the Amiga is being support properly by SAS. The Amiga has several unique capabilities that need to be supported directly by the Compiler. Overlays, chip mem, base register addressing, inline shared library calls, parameter passage in registers. etc. We are not aware that gcc is able to compete with SAS/c when it comes to those Amiga capabilities. And the final reason we use lattice and not gcc for client development: Our customers typically do not have gcc as their native development compiler. Most are graphics programmers want to work on graphics problems not compiler problems. It is better for them to buy a commercial compiler so they will get real support. Also the gcc compiler will not run on many of our customer's Amigas because of the ram required. -- Dale Luck GfxBase/Boing, Inc. {uunet!cbmvax|pyramid}!amiga!boing!dale