randall@Virginia.EDU (Ran Atkinson) (01/24/91)
For those following the discussions about ZC++ and TC++ I need to make a note of clarification. Offline e-mail discussions with some other posters indicated that the problems they were having with large projects involved situations where they had full debug information turned on in each and every module of the entire project. My postings about not having seen any such problem with a large project are accurate in so far as they go, but I never have full debug info turned on for each and every module at any one time. I have some modules with full debug info turned on and others (most) with debug info turned off (which modules are turned on depends on what I'm trying to debug and varies from time to time). If you have problems with TC++ and a large project, you probably do not want to have full debug information for each and every module turned on at the same time. This strikes me as a reasonable workaround, but if ZC++ _can_ handle everything in full debug at once (as I'm told -- I haven't tried that yet because it slows down the debugger) then this might be a reason to prefer ZC++ to TC++. I have no affiliation with either Borland or Zortech other than as an ordinary customer and user. Ran Atkinson randall@Virginia.EDU
karel@prisma.cv.ruu.nl (Karel Zuiderveld) (01/24/91)
I am using the Guidelines C++ translator 2.0, Turbo C++ professional 1.00 and Zortech developers edition 2.17 (beta). The translator is used to ensure that the code which I am writing is portable to Unix systems (since it's using the AT&T translator). It is *very* slow and can not be used in a Windows environment (protected mode). Turbo C++ is a splendid programming environment to work in. Version 1.00 contains several minor bugs; I wasn't able to get my hands on 1.01 which is supposed to fix several of them. Zortech C++ has the fastest compiler; I couldn't discover a bug yet in the 2.17 release. It has one *major* disadvantage: it doesn't support AT&T 2.0 iostreams. They say they are working on it, but the last 6 months nothing exciting has happened :-(. Since I am working on both PC and Unix systems, the only practical choice right now is Turbo C++. I think Zortech is currently the better compiler, but it's a drag I can't use it. Karel -- Karel Zuiderveld E-mail: karel@cv.ruu.nl 3D Computer Vision - Room E.02.222 Tel: (31-30) 506682/507772 Academisch Ziekenhuis Utrecht Fax: (31-30) 513399 Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX Utrecht, The Netherlands
waynet@kit.CNA.TEK.COM (Wayne Turner) (01/24/91)
In article <1991Jan23.182953.588@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> Ran Atkinson <randall@Virginia.EDU> writes: >For those following the discussions about ZC++ and TC++ I need to make >a note of clarification. >... > >If you have problems with TC++ and a large project, you probably do not >want to have full debug information for each and every module turned on >at the same time. This strikes me as a reasonable workaround, but if >ZC++ _can_ handle everything in full debug at once (as I'm told -- >I haven't tried that yet because it slows down the debugger) then this >might be a reason to prefer ZC++ to TC++. > I am working on a project that links in 70 OBJS, all with compiled with debug info. Total lines of source code is about 6000. Load image size about 270K. Version 2.10 of Zortech debugger (zdb286) routinely crashed when all modules contained debug info but version 2.10C has worked OK so far. >I have no affiliation with either Borland or Zortech other than as an >ordinary customer and user. Likewise for me. Wayne Turner Tektronix, Inc. Redmond, Oregon waynet@kit.CNA.TEK.COM
tjr@cbnewsc.att.com (thomas.j.roberts) (01/26/91)
From article <6901@tekred.CNA.TEK.COM>, by waynet@kit.CNA.TEK.COM (Wayne Turner): > > I am working on a project that links in 70 OBJS, all with compiled > with debug info. Total lines of source code is about 6000. Load > image size about 270K. Version 2.10 of Zortech debugger (zdb286) routinely > crashed when all modules contained debug info but version 2.10C > has worked OK so far. I have a program with 12 .cpp files, about 6000 lines of C++, and a .exe file size of 317kb. TC++ 1.01 compiles and links them all, with debugging enabled. I have had NO PROBLEMS with TC++ 1.01 at all, except for its dastardly way of never releasing its EMS segment when it exits (but I have a workaround using an EMS tool). Note that TC++ grinds to a slow crawl if you don't have EMS or XMS (1Mb or more). I use it on both an old PC6300 (8MHz 8086, 640 kb + 2Mb EMS) and a 6386/SX (16 MHz 80386SX, 640k RAM + 1Mb XMS). I am a satisfied user of TC++ 1.01, but sure wish they would come out with a Windows 3.0 developer's toolkit. Tom Roberts att!ihlpl!tjrob TJROB@IHLPL.ATT.COM
fritsf@idca.tds.PHILIPS.nl (F.H.J. Feldbrugge) (01/28/91)
In <1991Jan25.173040.24088@cbnewsc.att.com> tjr@cbnewsc.att.com (thomas.j.roberts) writes: > ... stuff deleted ... >I am a satisfied user of TC++ 1.01, but sure wish they would come >out with a Windows 3.0 developer's toolkit. I have read an announcement of such a Borland product. Can't remember the magazine (somewhere in 4Q90). It was told to be "under beta test and expected to be available early 1991". -- -------------------------------------------------------------------- | Frits Feldbrugge | Internet: fritsf@idca.tds.philips.nl | | Philips TDS | UUCP: .....!mcvax!philapd!fritsf | --------------------------------------------------------------------