On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 18:37:08 +0100, Ahem A Rivet's Shot 
wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 16:56:37 GMT
> stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) wrote:
>
>> I accept that gcc and friends are widely used. I use it myself from
>> time to time. However, despite the amount of money thrown at it by
>> companies such as ARM and Intel, it's not considered to be a good
>> compiler by people who know about such things. In the main, it's
>> good enough.
>
>  Going back to when gcc was young around the early 90s it was a
> significant improvement on the C compilers included with most Unix systems.
> Many unix houses switched to it so that they could at least be consistent
> across the platforms they supported and not have to workaround different
> bugs on each platform.
>
>  Since then all the crap C compilers that used to get bundled have
> gone and the only commercial C compilers remaining are the very good ones
> because you can't sell (or give away) a crap C compiler now.

I remember in the mid to late 90s installing GCC instead of XLC on AIX.
XLC still exists, but then certain people are always loyal to IBM.

GCC also drove improvements to the C/C++ compilers on DOS and Windows too.
Visual C++ didn't get C99 support until Visual C++ 2013.

--
Andy Leighton => andyl@azaal.plus.com
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
   - Douglas Adams

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05