Re: gcc 2.9 Warnings

From: d. hall (dhall@OOI.NET)
Date: 06/17/98

>>>>> thus on Wed, 17 Jun 1998 11:16:38 +0000, Chuck wrote:

> Christopher Avans wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Jun 1998, Matt McLaughlin wrote:
>> > On Tue, 16 Jun 1998, Chuck Carson wrote:

>> > > Here is what gcc -v says:
>> > > Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc-lib/alpha-linux/egcs-2.90.29/specs
>> > > gcc version egcs-2.90.29 980515 (egcs-1.0.3 release)

>> >   Hey man.. go download gnu-2.8.1 from sunsite or somethin.. your compiler
>> > probably sucks.  If its not that.. then try installing whatever compiler
>> > you did have in on your last OS.

egcs has actually proven to be a little more stable than gcc 2.8.x.  Also
it's cross platform stability is a nice touch.

> This is Red Hat 5.1, kernel 2.0.34 and this is Gnu's latest alplha
> compiler.  (Released in the last month)

> Also, from my experience, the more warnings and errors, the better the
> compiler.  Take a look at Sun's C compiler, it rocks anything out there
> but also very picky.

Try using SGI's IRIX IDE compiler, or DEC^H^H^HCompaq's compiler for
Digital Unix.  Native compilers have alway proven to compile faster,
tighter executables, but let's face it, gcc is the best bang for the buck,
and a nice and easy package for cross-compiler support.

Based upon what a couple people said and cross-checking both messages,
MAXEMOVE was defined, and MAXMOVE was checked against, but with the
implicit (int) warning, was a function defined w/o a return type?  By
default it will be cast as an int, and egcs will complain about it.


     | Ensure that you have read the CircleMUD Mailing List FAQ:  |
     | |

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/15/00 PST