|maturity of the c++ compiler technology Vincenzo.DeFlorio@esat.kuleuven.ac.be (Vincenzo De Florio) (1999-10-04)|
|Re: maturity of the c++ compiler technology email@example.com (1999-10-06)|
|Re: maturity of the c++ compiler technology firstname.lastname@example.org (Juergen Kahrs) (1999-10-06)|
|Re: maturity of the c++ compiler technology email@example.com (1999-10-11)|
|Re: maturity of the c++ compiler technology firstname.lastname@example.org (Jonathan Barker) (1999-10-11)|
|Re: maturity of the c++ compiler technology email@example.com (Per Bothner) (1999-10-11)|
|Re: maturity of the c++ compiler technology joerg.brunsmann@FernUni-Hagen.de (Joerg Brunsmann) (1999-10-11)|
|Re: maturity of the c++ compiler technology Juergen.Kahrs@t-online.de (Juergen Kahrs) (1999-10-13)|
|From:||Per Bothner <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Date:||11 Oct 1999 02:33:06 -0400|
|Organization:||SBC Internet Services|
Juergen Kahrs <email@example.com> writes:
> An exercise to the reader: On page 46 of Bjarne S's book
> The C++ programming language (3.ed.) you find this simple program:
> Find a compiler which is able to produce an executable for this program.
> This is not as trivial as it looks at first sight (a hint: try the
> experimental egcs-2.91.66). Do not change a single byte of the source
> code. Why does gcc 2.7 not succeed ? Which two lines need changing
> before gcc 2.7 can compile it ? Why ? Can a language be called "stable"
> before there are stable (not experimental) compilers for the language ?
Gcc 2.7 is ancient history and has been obsolete for years, at least
for C++ programming. The current official stable release is
gcc-2.95.1, which you could have found by checking the web page at:
I believe the 'e' in "egcs" officially stood for "enhanced", not
"experimental", and in any case "experimental" referred to the
development model, not the compiler itself. For example, the egcs-1.1
announcement just says "EGCS is a free software project to further
the development of the GNU compilers using an open development
I didn't try 2.95.1, but I tried a pre-2.96 snapshot (from the cvs)
which compiles and runs your example with no problems.
firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com http://www.bothner.com/~per/
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.