|Why some PC C compilers are useless email@example.com (1992-05-07)|
|Re: Why some PC C compilers are useless firstname.lastname@example.org (1992-05-08)|
|Re: Why some PC C compilers are useless email@example.com (1992-05-11)|
|Re: Why some PC C compilers are useless Zoid@mindlink.bc.ca (1992-05-11)|
|Re: Why some PC C compilers are useless firstname.lastname@example.org (Bob Montante) (1992-05-12)|
|Re: Why some PC C compilers are useless email@example.com (1992-05-13)|
|Re: Why some PC C compilers are useless firstname.lastname@example.org.Virginia.EDU (1992-05-14)|
|From:||email@example.com (Simon J. Gerraty)|
|Date:||Thu, 7 May 1992 11:48:05 GMT|
Consider this a plea to all vendors of C for MS-DOS.
Please do _not_ use "text" mode for reading the source! A C compiler
should not care whether a line of source ends in CR,LF or just a LF.
The reverse is true as well - I recall fixing gcc-1.34 to not get upset by
CR's in the source, fortunately I was able to fix it. But in the binary
only MSDOS world I simply have to chose another compiler!
I bought Borland's Turbo C (v1.5) years ago, and liked it. But I had to
abandon it in favour of Microsoft's compiler because while MSC could
handle CR,LF or just LF, Borland's compiler went berserk - reporting lots
of syntax errors etc.
Currently I'm looking for a PC C++ compiler... a colleague at work had
Borland's C++ (v3.0) so I tried compiling my code with it. Lots of
ridiculous errors! Guess what, convert all the source to CR,LF and all
the errors go away! Splash one.
This is a real pity. In general I like Borland products, their pricing
and the fact that they provide good competition to Microsoft. But, I live
in a UNIX world and do all my development in that environment. Having to
convert all my source to dos text format before being able to compile it
on a PC is just not good enough, and prevents me sharing a single source
tree between UNIX and DOS.
So Borland and any other PC C compiler vendors out there, please heed the
call and fix your compiler's to live in a bigger world.
BTW, I have no connection with either Microsoft or Borland other than as a
user of their compilers.
Perhaps I should do a DOS backend for gcc?
Simon J. Gerraty <firstname.lastname@example.org>
[There already is a DOS version of GCC, see the compilers FAQ. -John]
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.