From:	Linley Henzell <zel AT olis DOT net DOT au>
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: DJGPP vs Borland C++
Date:	Mon, 27 Jan 1997 10:44:41 -0800
Organization:	Microtronics Information Systems
Lines:	28
Message-ID:	<32ECF799.74EF@olis.net.au>
References:	<5c1qik$9sh AT lion DOT cs DOT latrobe DOT edu DOT au> <32E98087 DOT 6A50 AT cs DOT com>
Reply-To:	zel AT olis DOT net DOT au
NNTP-Posting-Host:	ppp0d.olis.net.au
Mime-Version:	1.0
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

John M. Aldrich wrote:
> 
> Gregary J Boyles wrote:
> >
> > On the whole I have found Borland C++ compilers to be among the most unreliable and unpredictable products on the market. Has any one else encountered the
> > same problems and how does djgpp compare to them?
> 
> Borland is well-known for its bugginess.  DJGPP, OTOH, has consistently
> proven to be better and more reliable than any other compiler it
> competes with.  

Well, I'm having some problems with a C program written with Borland C++
3.1 which refuses to work with DJGPP v2. It compiles fine, but every
time I run it, it aborts with a SIGSEGV GPF. I have no idea why this
happens, because it seems to choose a completely arbitrary point at
which to abort (I checked with Symify), and my program contains nothing
which I can imagine being objectionable (like pointers or dynamic memory
allocation).
Meanwhile, a little test program works okay with DJGPP.

Borland's compiler has no problems whatsoever with it, and I've rarely
had any problems with BC++. If anybody knows about something which
Borland C++ 3.1 copes with, but which DJGPP just doesn't like, I would
really appreciate them letting me know so that I can remove it from my
program! Any assistance in this problem would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, 
Linley Henzell

- Raw text -