Date: 15 Nov 1997 13:32:00 +0100
From: mjs AT prg DOT hannover DOT sgh-net DOT de (Mark Junker)
To: opendos AT delorie DOT com
Message-ID: <6huJRUb88gB@prg.hannover.sgh-net.de>
In-Reply-To: <619@mpak.convey.ru>
Subject: Re: djgpp -> ?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk


Prev. Author: ark AT mpak DOT convey DOT ru
      Date:   15.11.97
      Subject:"djgpp -> ?"

> Does anybody know what commercial compiler is closest to djgpp? Watcom or
> smth else? I am going to recompile some djgpp ports because i get constant
> problems with djgpp - compiled binaries.
I started a project compilable with GCC and Symantec C++.

There are still differences:

- GCC sometimes requires template instatiation, SC++ doesn't.
- GCC has a <typeinfo> while SC++ has a <typeinfo.h> (needed when using
  RTTI).
- GCC has command line expansion for response files (@filename.ext),
  SC doesn't.
- GCC has problems with nested structures (bug?)
- GCC has standard library functions to support "long long" like strtoll
  while SC hasn't.
- GCC supports register calling convention, SC doesn't, Watcom, Borland, MSVC
  does - but maybe in a different way.


Anyway: You must not use other GCC specific extensions ... there are lots of  
them. IMHO there is no compiler that supports all extensions (or even most of  
them) of GCC.

BTW1: Register calling convention is realized in the most flexible way in the  
Watcom compiler but I have heard that Watcom's RTL is buggy.

BTW2: I use templates, exceptions *and* RTTI in my project and till now -  
it's compilable with both compilers (knock on wood).

As you see there are always many pros and cons for all compilers. You can  
only hope that the sources doesn't use too much GCC specific extensions.

Regards, MJS
Use it: _PB3.2 & PREP_ / _ASM & PREASM_