Re: gcc vs egcs

["G. Crimp" <ye416@freenet.victoria.bc.ca>]

On Tue, Jan 19, 1999 at 04:54:19PM -0500, fantumn Steven Baker" wrote:

Hi Steve,

	Glad to see you are still amongst the ranks of Debian users.  I am
not the most knowledgable person on this subject, but when I say the name
fantumn, I couldn't resist answering.  You might get a better answer from
someone else, but I will give it a try.  Apparently, gcc and g++ development
became fragmented as developers split into a number of camps.  GNU gcc and
g++ development (Deb gcc and g++ were the GNU versions) has halted, or at
least slowed to a trickle.  egcs is a movement to bring back together the
various gcc/g++ development streams.

	The egcs versions of gcc and g++ are not both yet ready for prime
time.  I may get corrected on this, but I think it is gcc that still has
some bugs, so Deb (2.0 at least) is still using GNU gcc.  g++ on Deb is now
the egcs version.  So I don't think it is a question of one "sucks" and the
other doesn't.  It is more a case of c and c++ compiler development moving
to egcs 'cause that is where development is happening.

	You might want to check out the Deb mailing list archives to get
more informative detail than I can give.

	Yours from Victoria,

	Gerald

> Okay, I don't want to start a holy war or anything here, but I have some
> questions about egcs and gcc.
> 
> First, was wondering _what_ the differences between gcc and egcs were.
> 
> (Note: when I say gcc, I mean gcc _and_ g++)
> 
> Compatibility:  First, can egcs compile everything that gcc can?  IE: kernel?
> Also, is g++ incapable of compiling programs written for compilation with egcs?
> (ie: Berlin)...
> 
> Please include your own opinions, but please don't just say (egcs|gcc) sucks,
> and not provide reason.  Sure, "(egcs|gcc) sucks because..." is acceptable.
> 
> Thanks in advance...
> 
> -fantumn
> 
> 
> -- 
> Unsubscribe?  mail -s unsubscribe debian-user-request@lists.debian.org < /dev/null
>