C compilers for A/UX

[Jim Jagielski]

In article <1990Sep10.002711.22219 at servalan.uucp> rmtodd at servalan.uucp (Richard Todd) writes:
>jim at jagmac2.gsfc.nasa.gov (Jim Jagielski) writes:
>
>>I have the Unisoft Optimizing C Compiler for A/UX (GreenHills), A/UX cc
>>and GnuC 1.37.91. Without a doubt, the Unisoft compiler makes tight, fast
>>code. cc isn't very fast or tight, but very stable. And it supports shared
>>libraries (Unisoft doesn't... see below). But I've had NOTHING but bad luck
>>using GnuC (gcc)!! Weird behavior, core dumps, crashes, bombs, etc...
>
>A/UX cc stable???

By stable, I mean that it produces solid code. Maybe stable was the wrong
term, but I stand behind my opinion.

>                           I trust you *do* know about compiling with 
>-fwritable-strings? GCC by default puts string constants in text space where
>they can't be modified, as ANSI C allows.  Alas, broken implementations of
>sscanf, like Apple's, try to write to the string they're scanning, which means
>that if you're passing a constant string to sscanf, it dies with SIGSEGV unless
>you compiled with -fwritable-strings.

Maybe that was it... I was compiling with -traditional. This happened with
my port of ftpd, sendmail and fingerd, which all use sscanf (amongst others)
so that may be the problems. Seems to me, the default should be -fwri* since,
as I understand it, this is basically an ANSI "feature", and should be added
when one selects -ansi...

Thanks for the help, but maybe my attitude towards gcc may be a little tainted
by FSF and their "holier than thou" attitude.
--
=======================================================================
#include <std/disclaimer.h>
                                 =:^)
           Jim Jagielski                    NASA/GSFC, Code 711.1
     jim at jagmac2.gsfc.nasa.gov               Greenbelt, MD 20771

"Kilimanjaro is a pretty tricky climb. Most of it's up, until you reach
 the very, very top, and then it tends to slope away rather sharply."