>>>>> 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.
d.
+------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ensure that you have read the CircleMUD Mailing List FAQ: |
| http://democracy.queensu.ca/~fletcher/Circle/list-faq.html |
+------------------------------------------------------------+
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/15/00 PST