etg@dhw68k.cts.com (Eric Bennett) (08/18/90)
I recently accquired the GCC C Compiler from another XENIX system and found
out (when I un-tared it) that it did not come with the include files needed
to run it. I realise that these files are system specific (i.e. you need the
UNIX include files to run it on a UNIX system and the XENIX include........)
but why do they have the compiler if you have to buy a C Development System
in order to get the include files in order to use GCC? If you have purchased
a C Compiler you obviously wouldn't need the GCC Compiler. But it appears,
unless I am mistaken, that you can only get the include files from SCO when
you purchase the Development System.
It makes no sense to me.
Eric Bennett
(If you can read this you aren't looking through the Hubble Space Telescope)
--
Eric Bennett
Internet: etg@dhw68k.cts.com UUCP: ...{spsd,zardoz,felix}!dhw68k!etgdavidsen@sixhub.UUCP (Wm E. Davidsen Jr) (08/19/90)
The gcc compiler compiles gcc, not C. It is useful for compiling some
net programs which make heavy use of the "extensions" to the language.
The Xenix C compiler often won't compile some vaild code, and gcc is
useful there, too. In UNIX you have rcc (real cc) and can compile most
things with that.
--
bill davidsen - davidsen@sixhub.uucp (uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen)
sysop *IX BBS and Public Access UNIX
moderator of comp.binaries.ibm.pc and 80386 mailing list
"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -meart@pilikia.pegasus.com (Art Neilson) (08/20/90)
In article <1990Aug18.091631.19939@dhw68k.cts.com> etg@dhw68k.cts.com (Eric Bennett) writes: > >I recently accquired the GCC C Compiler from another XENIX system and found >out (when I un-tared it) that it did not come with the include files needed >to run it. I realise that these files are system specific (i.e. you need the >UNIX include files to run it on a UNIX system and the XENIX include........) >but why do they have the compiler if you have to buy a C Development System >in order to get the include files in order to use GCC? If you have purchased >a C Compiler you obviously wouldn't need the GCC Compiler. But it appears, >unless I am mistaken, that you can only get the include files from SCO when >you purchase the Development System. > >It makes no sense to me. It actually makes a lot of sense, the GCC compiler has a lot more features and is a fully ANSI C compiler in contrast to the stock pcc that most of us have. It certainly isn't GNU's responsibility to provide system specific header files, actually what the GNU guys are doing is developing an entire OS free of AT&T licensing and the GNU C compiler happens to be one of the tools they have completed for that environment to be. I suppose an unscrupulous sort of person could just contact another XENIX site with the SCO XENIX development system and get the header files from them, however. -- Arthur W. Neilson III | ARPA: art@pilikia.pegasus.com Bank of Hawaii Tech Support | UUCP: uunet!ucsd!nosc!pegasus!pilikia!art
jtc@motcad.portal.com (J.T. Conklin) (08/20/90)
In article <1536@sixhub.UUCP> davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes: >The gcc compiler compiles gcc, not C. Just as the Microsoft compiler compiles "Microsoft C", and the pcc derived compilers compile "PCC C". I am unaware of any C compiler which everyone will agree is the "One True C Compiler". In fact, it could be argued that gcc will eclipse pcc as the de facto standard C compiler as vendors abandon pcc due to poor performance, etc. >It is useful for compiling some >net programs which make heavy use of the "extensions" to the language. I haven't seen any "net programs" that really use the gcc extensions. The only extension I use myself is the function inlining directive, but I always disable it with a: #ifndef __GNUC__ #define inline #endif if I'm not compiling with gcc. >The Xenix C compiler often won't compile some vaild code, and gcc is >useful there, too. In UNIX you have rcc (real cc) and can compile most >things with that. I use gcc on SCO Xenix/UNIX for the following reasons: * It generates correct code. * It understands ANSI C function prototypes. Niether compiler from SCO meets both criteria. --jtc -- J.T. Conklin UniFax Communications, Inc. CADnet Inc, San Ramon California jtc@motcad.portal.com, ...!portal!motcad!jtc
itkin@mrspoc.Transact.COM (Steven M. List) (08/22/90)
etg@dhw68k.cts.com (Eric Bennett) writes: >I recently accquired the GCC C Compiler from another XENIX system and found >out (when I un-tared it) that it did not come with the include files needed > [...] >It makes no sense to me. Well, Eric recognized that the headers must be specific to the version of the O/S. So the question would seem to be not "Why doesn't GCC include the header files for all versions of *NIX?", but "Is there any way to get the O/S specific header files without buying the whole development system for that O/S (and is there any rationale for the vendors to do so)?" That is, does it make sense for the vendors to acknowledge that their compiler(s) and linker(s) might not be desirable and to therefore separate the program from the auxiliary files, right? Why not unbundle the header files (and libraries?) from the compiler? I suspect the answer is that you'd end up PAYING the same thing, since the only difference is whether they include a few executables or not. What advantage is there for the vendor to go to the work of producing two OVERLAPPING packages? So I guess I think that Eric (and others) should just bite the bullet, buy the development system, and then delete any files they don't want. I think the same argument applies to the questions about the on-line man pages, since you do need the utilities to process the files, right? -- +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ : Steven List @ Transact Software, Inc. :^>~ : : Chairman, Unify User Group of Northern California : : {apple,coherent,limbo,mips,pyramid,ubvax}!itkin@guinan.Transact.COM :