Re: Free UNIX for non-commerical use.

From: Dr. David Kirkby (drkirkby_at_ntlworld.com)
Date: 07/31/03 

Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 13:52:41 +0100

Peter da Silva wrote:
>
> In article <3F251918.B861101C@ntlworld.com>,
> Dr. David Kirkby <drkirkby@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > 1) In the case of games manufacturers, they would indeed loose revenue
> > if they allowed everyone to copy their games. I don't think this is so
> > with UNIX operating systems and compilers. There are not than many
> > home users going to pay more than $1000 on a compiler. They will
> > likely use gcc instead and have to accept the poorer performance.
>
> And write software that only compiles on GCC, so that the commercial
> vendors own users end up having to install GCC just to build and run
> open-source software.
>
> GCC is a fine compiler, but it's becoming a monoculture for software
> developers... it's almost like GCC and a collection of related tools
> are turning into a "linux emulator" for UNIX systems. So... where the
> cry used to be "all the world's a VAX", it's now "all the world's Red
> Hat".
>
> I guess that's OK, if you like a monoculture.

I agree with you entirely there. As far as 90% of open-source
developers are concerned, if it compiles on gcc, it is okay. Few seem
to make any effort to check it with other compilers.

Like it or not, gcc is now a standard. I don't think its a very good
standard in many ways, but it is no doubt a standard - at least
according to a dictionary definition of a standard
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=standard
before anyone jumps up and tells me gcc does not conform to this or
that ISO standard. At least one compiler (IBM's for AIX I think), has
switches to enable gcc extensions.

I think the code that gcc allows to pass without issuing a warning,
needs tightening up. -Wall is next to useless. A lot more could be
done to ensure that code is portable, before the -Wall option gives no
warnings. I think if the compiler warnings issued were much more
comprehensive, then people would tend to remove possible portability
problems, making the code more portable. As it is, people see that
their code compiles okay on gcc with no warnings and think it is good
code. In reality, gcc -Wall is far too lax. (You post has made me
decide to run gccbug and report this as a bug).

I have here a number of test machines I use for checking my software.
I've put quite a bit of effort in to checking the portability of
http://atlc.sourceforge.net/

Whenever possible I have tried to obtain the manufacturers compilers.
I have legal licences for Solaris, AIX, IRIX and Tru64 - all obtained
at zero or minimal cost under one scheme or the other.

I've yet to get a copy of HP's compiler for HP-UX, so have no choice
but to install gcc on that. It's a shame really, as the HP PA-RISC box
is the best performing machine I have, so I expect it would do even
better with an HP compiler. I can't seem to find one on eBay.

Dr. David Kirkby,
Senior Research Fellow,
Department of Medical Physics,
University College London,
11-20 Capper St, London, WC1E 6JA.
Tel: 020 7679 6408 Fax: 020 7679 6269
Internal telephone: ext 46408
e-mail davek@medphys.ucl.ac.uk

Relevant Pages

  • Re: non-standard functions in libc -- bad design?
    ... standard supported by a compiler/library, ... I'd call them extensions. ... gcc doesn't get a vote. ... gcc is just a compiler, ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Is C close to the machine? (was: first-class types)
    ... in comp.lang.c and among the GCC maintainers mean the standardized ... a very abstract way that is described in the standard document and is ... GCC and GCC without optimization know quite well what is ... work on other machines if the C compiler compiles it like I intended). ...
    (comp.arch)
  • Re: c standard
    ... *particular* compiler and therefore off topic in this newsgroup. ... you wanted to see this amusing response you should have tried to ask ... standard that gcc supports, the -ansi notwithstanding, and its probably ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: Free UNIX for non-commerical use.
    ... >> likely use gcc instead and have to accept the poorer performance. ... gcc is now a standard. ... At least one compiler, ... then people would tend to remove possible portability ...
    (comp.sys.sgi.admin)
  • Re: Free UNIX for non-commerical use.
    ... >> likely use gcc instead and have to accept the poorer performance. ... gcc is now a standard. ... At least one compiler, ... then people would tend to remove possible portability ...
    (comp.unix.solaris)