3 ms·
> From 1996-1999, the stable choice on both speed and reliability was the GNU one. Meh, gcc 2.8 was buggy as hell on Linux/i386 by around 1998, as was gcc 2.95
by nineteen999 2y ago
> From 1996-1999, the stable choice on both speed and reliability was the GNU one.
Meh, gcc 2.8 was buggy as hell on Linux/i386 by around 1998, as was gcc 2.95 up to 2.95.3. The issues with it are what led to the egcs fork which eventually replaced the original gcc branch. So it wasn't all sunshine and roses.
- guenthert 2y agoI thought it was missing features in the C++ compiler and its less-than-perfectly-clear error messages which led to the split. The C compiler was pretty sound early on. Sure, occasionally there were bugs, but users, including Linus Torvalds, complained loudly about those, because expectations were already high.
- CalChris 2y agoEGCS was started because of Stallman. They refused to criticize him directly but it was clear from their Declaration of Independence email that it was Stallman. They even used its language but avoided Stallman’s name to make the eventual merge politically possible. https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/History#EGCS https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/History#EGCS