[Aranym-user] GNU/GCC 3.3.6 SDK for miniPack

Francois LE COAT lecoat at atari.org
Mon Mar 24 23:16:57 CET 2014


I suspect we already had that kind of talk on Atari-coldfire list ?

Then I could perfectly build Eureka 2.12 with GNU/GCC 4.x, but
it was behaving totally wrong, and I couldn't tell you why ...

That's why I'm speaking of an incompatibility at sources level.

Eero Tamminen writes :
> Francois LE COAT wrote:
>> GNU/GCC 3.x is not better or worse than GNU/GCC 4.x ... It's just
>> different way of writing computer's languages. I would say that
>> 3.x is better if you write plain C language, and 4.x for C++ extension.
>> That's a matter of generations of developers ... I started writing
>> Kernighan and Ritchie C language, than I moved to pure ANSI C. The
>> transition to C++ for me is not natural, at all. Many warnings in
>> GNU/GCC 3.x became errors in 4.x. I can't cope with this 4.x style.
> What kind of "warnings become errors"?
>> The problem, when I build Eureka 2.12 with GNU/GCC 4.x, is that
>> it behaves completely wrong. Eureka 2.12 being a large piece of
>> C language, I can't tell you why, and I have no time to spend on it.
> What optimization options you're using?
> The higher optimization options you use, the more correct
> your code needs to be.  Lower optimization levels are more
> forgiving of programming errors, and compiler's stricter
> interpretation of C specifications.
> For example, you might want to try build with "-fno-strict-aliasing".
> (Aliasing optimizations are enabled in GCC by -O2.)
>> So, I prefer building Eureka 2.12 with GNU/GCC 3.3.6. Perhaps it
>> could be useful for other developers, who would like to build old code.
>> It's a pity we can't access to GNU/GCC 3.3.6 cross-compiler, because
>> I would really enjoy using it, better than native, that is not so bad.

Best regards,

François LE COAT
Author of Eureka 2.12 (2D Graph Describer, 3D Modeller)

More information about the cz-bobek-lists-aranym-user mailing list