🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Aug31.164909.7198@fcom.cc.utah.edu>  
swillden@news.ccutah.edu (Shawn Willden) writes:
> Note to readers of comp.lang.c++:  I am cross-posting this because  
questions
> 2, 3, and 4 are applicable and I want opinions/facts from all you C++  
gurus.
> 
> Hi, I have a few questions about replacing cc with gcc (I have NeXTStep  
2.0, BTW)
> 
> 1)	I understand that the newest version of gcc incorporates NeXT's 
> Objective-C extensions.  Is gcc lacking anything?  Is NeXT making any  
new
> additions to their compiler for 3.0 that may not be present in the  
current 
> version of gcc?
> 

The only thing that I am aware of in the 3.0 NeXT verison of the Compiler  
is support for pre-compiled headers.  Makes compiling go quick like a  
bunny.   Now you can just #import <appkit/appkit.h> and quit worrying  
about which headers have which prototypes.

--Jason Brown
brown@ccit01.duq.edu
   ____                __
    /                 /  )
   /  _, ,  __       /-,' ,_  __
\_/__</_/>_(_/_/\/  /__)__/__(_/__(_/_)_/\/

"Remember, be humble, always answer the phone...
 No matter who's in the car."  Jack Lemmon

could somw kind soul either tell me where to find 10band or mail me a
copy of the sources?

I lost my only copy (I thought I had a backup) a few months ago.  I need the 
sources because I'd like to do some modifications.

10Band is a 10 band graphic EQ that works  via the DSP port, for those of you
that don't know.

-- 
/*  These are only my opinions.  Whose else could/would take credit? */
/*  - If you are anti-abortion you are passing out condoms and doing */
/*  - birth control education, right?  You also aren't trying to     */
/*  - impose your moral views on anyone, right?  I didn't think so.  */

In article <1992Aug31.164909.7198@fcom.cc.utah.edu> swillden@news.ccutah.edu (Shawn Willden) writes:
>1)	I understand that the newest version of gcc incorporates NeXT's 
>Objective-C extensions.  Is gcc lacking anything?  Is NeXT making any new
>additions to their compiler for 3.0 that may not be present in the current 
>version of gcc?

NeXT donated their Objective-C compiler (which they were obligated to do
under the terms of the Gnu Public License) and it is distributed with
gcc-2.x.  However, they did not donate the run-time support or the class
libraries.  If you have a NeXT, you have these libraries and should be
able to use the Objective-C compiler from Gnu (no, I haven't tried it); if
you're on another platform, you can't (yet), because key parts are
missing.  I understand that there is now a group working on remedying
this.

>2) How complete is gcc's implementation of C++?  Does it support templates
>as described in _The C++ Programming Language 2nd Ed._ (by Bjarne
>Stroustrup)?  I know it doesn't support exceptions (yet).

g++ is a fairly complete implementation.  It supports templates, though
there are still some bugs.  We successfully use it for fairly sizable
projects on several platforms (Sun-4, DecStation, HP Snake, not NeXT though).

>3)	How stable is 2.2.2? 

It's possible to make it dump core, but that's getting harder all the
time.  It's closer to the ARM than cfront 2.1 is, and not as close to
the ARM as cfront 3.0.

>4)	How standard are the libg++ libraries?  (i.e. how closely do they track
>the work of the ANSI C++ committee? [In implementation, not content, ANSI
>hasn't/isn't going to specify standard libraries, right?])

As of libg++ 2.0, the iostream library is very close to that of AT&T.
Yes, ANSI is going to specify standard libraries for streams, and possibly
a couple of others.  I think you mean "In interface, not implementation",
since you don't care about the implementation if the interface is the same.

>5)	Is 2.2.2 compatible with the NeXT gdb or would I have to get gdb-4.6 as
>well?

I recommend getting gdb-4.6 if you're going to use g++.  It has greatly
improved facilities for finding member functions, including command
completion (where you type part of the name and prototype of an overloaded
member function and it completes it or lists the possibilities).  I don't
know what version of gdb NeXT provides; if it predates 4.0 you'll need
to upgrade.




--
Joe Buck	jbuck@ohm.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Aug31.164909.7198@fcom.cc.utah.edu> swillden@news.ccutah.edu  
(Shawn Willden) writes:
] Hi, I have a few questions about replacing cc with gcc (I have NeXTStep 2.0,  
BTW)
] 
] 1)	I understand that the newest version of gcc incorporates NeXT's 
] Objective-C extensions.  Is gcc lacking anything?  Is NeXT making any new
] additions to their compiler for 3.0 that may not be present in the current 
] version of gcc?
] 
I seem to remember hearing that there were some problems with compiling NeXT  
Apps using gcc in Obj-C mode, but the postings were a long time ago, and since  
then I have seen no references to them.  The NeXT 3.0 compiler will be a  
tradeoff:  it is based on gcc/g++ 1.92 (or something close) with NeXT  
additions, most especially in the preprocessor, which allows NeXT to use a new  
type of # directive in its header files which will probably choke gcc.  Other  
than that, we can only hope that the people at NeXT were able to iron out the  
innumerable bugs and problems that were present in the source for gcc 1.9!

] 2)	How complete is gcc's implementation of C++?  Does it support templates
] as described in _The C++ Programming Language 2nd Ed._ (by Bjarne  
Stroustrup)?  I
] know it doesn't support exceptions (yet).
]
Template support is there, but still needs some work (at least from what I see  
in terms of posted problems).  This seems to be getting better with each  
version.

] 3)	How stable is 2.2.2? 
] 
Not really a very useful way to ask the question, but in general it is pretty  
good.  It is far superior to the modified 1.39 compiler that comes on the 2.1  
NeXT.  However, you should be prepared to upgrade the 2.2.2 compiler to each  
subsequent release.  More problems are fixed than new ones appear, so it has  
always been advantageous to move to the new version ASAP.

] 4)	How standard are the libg++ libraries?  (i.e. how closely do they track
] the work of the ANSI C++ committee? [In implementation, not content, ANSI
] hasn't/isn't going to specify standard libraries, right?])
]
Since implementation in C++ is basically the public interface, I would say that  
it tracks fairly well.  Of course, most of the library classes have no analogue  
in ANSI-land.

] 5)	Is 2.2.2 compatible with the NeXT gdb or would I have to get gdb-4.6 as
] well?
] 
No and no.  You cannot use the NeXT gdb (except to get backtraces), and you  
cannot build gdb 4.6 (or any other version) on the NeXT.  This is a big minus,  
but I refuse to go back to the outdated native C++ compiler.
 
] I would greatly appreciate answers and/or experiences from anyone who has had
] experience with gcc-2.2.2.
] 
I have been using it on both my NeXT and on our Sun since the day it was  
released.  I am very satisfied, and given the alternatives (old NeXT version or  
expensive commercial version) I am quite willing to do the work to upgrade  
and/or patch the code as problems are discovered and fixed.

--
Douglas Scott                              (805)893-8352
Center for Computer Music Research and Composition
University of California, Santa Barbara
Internet: (NeXTMail ok)   <doug@foxtrot.ccmrc.ucsb.edu>

In article <1992Aug31.164909.7198@fcom.cc.utah.edu>, swillden@news.ccutah.edu (Shawn Willden) writes:
|> 
|> 5)	Is 2.2.2 compatible with the NeXT gdb or would I have to get gdb-4.6 as
|> well?
|> 
Unfortunately, as previously posted, NeXTs gdb 3.x doesn't run perfectly
with gcc 2.2.2 output. But you can make more than backtraces if you
use the gcc option -gstabs to generate the debugging info. This is
understood by gcc 3.x. Unfortunately again, the stabs format doesn't
have all the abilities of gcc 3.x (or even 4.x).

Has anyone succeeded in getting gdb 4.6 adapted to NeXT? What gdb version
is used in NS 3.0? (Anyone should be allowed to answer that, now there are
some NS 3.0 final releases out!)

Uli

Shawn Willden writes
> 1)	I understand that the newest version of gcc incorporates NeXT's 
> Objective-C extensions.  Is gcc lacking anything?  Is NeXT making any new
> additions to their compiler for 3.0 that may not be present in the current 
> version of gcc?
> 

From a previous (long) discussion on this topic, yes, gcc can and will work
on a NeXT. You have to, however, make some slight modifications to the code
to get it too work. GNU uses a slightly different naming methods on method
calls, so you need to patch the code to use NeXT's method. Also, the don't,
by default, support #import, so you have to turn this feature on. With these
two items enabled, people reported that the Objective-C compiler worked quite
well on a NeXT.

You should be able to get a copy of the discussion from archive sites. I 
remember one post included patches to make it work.

I can't comment on the c++ aspects. Having learn OOP under Objective-C, I'm
generally loath to program under c++, except for when I have to. I prefer
simplicity over some of c++ more obscure features.

> 
> --
> Shawn Willden
> swillden@icarus.weber.edu

Alex
--
______________________________________________________
    Internet: alex@data.acs.calpoly.edu (NeXT mail)
              alex@cosmos.acs.calpoly.edu

>>>>> On 31 Aug 92 16:49:09 GMT, swillden@news.ccutah.edu (Shawn Willden) said:

Shawn> Note to readers of comp.lang.c++: I am cross-posting this because
Shawn> questions 2, 3, and 4 are applicable and I want opinions/facts from
Shawn> all you C++ gurus.

Shawn> Hi, I have a few questions about replacing cc with gcc (I have
Shawn> NeXTStep 2.0, BTW)

Shawn> 1)	I understand that the newest version of gcc incorporates
Shawn> NeXT's Objective-C extensions.  Is gcc lacking anything?  Is NeXT
Shawn> making any new additions to their compiler for 3.0 that may not be
Shawn> present in the current version of gcc?

I tried some Interface Builder tutorials with CC defined as gcc. Everything
compiled and run OK.

But, I tried some C++ example, and I could not get it working, since they
seem to be somekind of Objective-C with C++ (or other way round). How can you
use C++ with Interface Builder, if you are using gcc2.2.2 ?
--
Arto V. Viitanen				               email: av@uta.fi
University Of Tampere,				   	           av@cs.uta.fi
Finland

In article <1992Sep01.163152.118004@zeus.calpoly.edu> Alex Raftis writes:
> From a previous (long) discussion on this topic, yes, gcc can and will work
> on a NeXT. You have to, however, make some slight modifications to the code
> to get it too work. GNU uses a slightly different naming methods on method
> calls, so you need to patch the code to use NeXT's method. Also, the don't,
> by default, support #import, so you have to turn this feature on. With these
> two items enabled, people reported that the Objective-C compiler worked quite
> well on a NeXT.

So that's the problem that I was having with g++ all afternoon. I just
moved all my c++ source off a Convex to my NeXT to continue development.
I spend the last 3 hours trying to figure out the deal the NeXT gdb. It
kept complaining about "invalid symtab info for method at symbol number
52". I guess it pays to take a usenet break. :=)

> You should be able to get a copy of the discussion from archive sites. I 
> remember one post included patches to make it work.

I just check my favourite archive and they only have the FAQs. Anyone know
where I can find this patch for g++.

Thanks for the unsolicated tip. :=)

Just out of curiosity, I prefer to use the gnu compiler but can anyone give
a good comparision between cc++ and g++ as far as speed, code generation,
etc. And why isn't there a %&*^% man page for cc++.

--
Paul Poh                        Unix Systems Programmer
ppoh@amethyst.tcs.tufts.edu     Computer Services, Tufts University