Mail Archives: djgpp/1997/03/23/16:33:56
On Wed, 19 Mar 1997 19:21:43 -0800, Erik Max Francis <max AT alcyone DOT com>
wrote:
>Snoop Baron wrote:
>
>> I'm a new DJGPP user and love it :) I heard from a friend though that
>> he had probles with it being compatible with AT&T C++ and ANSI C. How
>> compatible is DJGPP with the standards, I know it has extensions.
>
>gcc (and thus DJGPP) is one of the most ANSI C/draft standard C++ compliant
>compilers. I heavily work with gcc (Linux and DJGPP), Microsoft Visual
>C++, and MetroWerks CodeWarrior, and gcc is by far the better in conforming
>of these three.
>
>Did your friend give any examples of how gcc is noncompliant? (Yes, there
>are extensions, but many of them are easily avoided with the appropriate
>compile flags.)
>
Perhaps what he's referring to the inline assembly aspect. If I
remember right, in the FAQ it mentions that DJGPP uses something
called AT&T format for inline-assembly as opposed to the Intel format
which most other C compilers and MASM/TASM use. This is also the
format is most commonly seen in various programming books if they use
any inline assembly examples. If this is the problem, you'd probably
be best served by getting a copy of the FAQ from Mr. Delorie's site.
It'd give a much better explanation than I ever could for porting the
assembly language parts.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think this particular quirk of
DJGPP has anything to do with the ANSI standard. DJGPP, as far as I
know, is about as ANSI compliant as any other compiler and as
mentioned by Mr. Francis, is more compliant than some of the
commercial compilers.
MCheu
-matrix AT ionsys DOT com
PS. Having reread the original message, I guess the original question
could be interpreted two ways. If the original poster meant that his
friend had a problem with DJGPP actually _being_ ANSI compliant, then
I really don't know what to say since I don't know of any currently
produced compiler that isn't ANSI compliant.
- Raw text -