I upgraded my RTP system to patch A (QNX 6) and qcc is now gone!
gcc is still there though and works fine… the Repository says the
development stuff is up-to-date buut there is no qcc in /bin, /sbin or
anywhere under /usr… there is a /etc/qcc directory but no tools
are in there (as expected)… Hmmmmm.
I have looked around and it is not mentioned in the release notes
so … is qcc gone from QNX6? If not how/why did my link disappear
if it is gone or depreciated the release notes should be updated…
is qcc still reccomended or should I change my development over to
calling gcc?? i.e. what are others doing in this regard.
-bill
Previously, William M. Derby Jr. wrote in qdn.public.qnxrtp.devtools:
I still would like to know if the general user community is using qcc
or sticking to gcc…
If you’re starting a poll, we’re using GCC exclusively. We port our
code among QNX4, Linux and NTO. By using GCC, we reduce the set of
compiler front-ends from 3 to 2. I can’t imagine it really matters
much, but I also can’t come up with a good reason why QCC exists at
all.
Regards,
Andrew
On Thu, 08 Feb 2001 20:15:51 GMT, derbyw@derbtronics.com (William M.
Derby Jr.) wrote:
I upgraded my RTP system to patch A (QNX 6) and qcc is now gone!
gcc is still there though and works fine… the Repository says the
development stuff is up-to-date buut there is no qcc in /bin, /sbin or
anywhere under /usr… there is a /etc/qcc directory but no tools
are in there (as expected)… Hmmmmm.
Whoops - I thought I had upgraded all of the stuff…
I have looked around and it is not mentioned in the release notes
so … is qcc gone from QNX6? If not how/why did my link disappear
if it is gone or depreciated the release notes should be updated…
is qcc still reccomended or should I change my development over to
calling gcc?? i.e. what are others doing in this regard.
I still would like to know if the general user community is using qcc
or sticking to gcc…
-bill
I’m using cc. It seems the most generic one. Any reason to prefer gcc or qcc
to cc?
Markus
“Andrew Thomas” <Andrew@cogent.ca> wrote in message
news:Voyager.010209130952.67985456D@andrewhome.cogent.ca…
Previously, William M. Derby Jr. wrote in qdn.public.qnxrtp.devtools:
I still would like to know if the general user community is using qcc
or sticking to gcc…
If you’re starting a poll, we’re using GCC exclusively. We port our
code among QNX4, Linux and NTO. By using GCC, we reduce the set of
compiler front-ends from 3 to 2. I can’t imagine it really matters
much, but I also can’t come up with a good reason why QCC exists at
all.
Regards,
Andrew
Markus Loffler <loffler@ces.clemson.edu> wrote:
I’m using cc. It seems the most generic one. Any reason to prefer gcc or qcc
to cc?
Markus
Under QNX 6, cc is a link to qcc
“Andrew Thomas” <> Andrew@cogent.ca> > wrote in message
news:> Voyager.010209130952.67985456D@andrewhome.cogent.ca> …
Previously, William M. Derby Jr. wrote in qdn.public.qnxrtp.devtools:
I still would like to know if the general user community is using qcc
or sticking to gcc…
If you’re starting a poll, we’re using GCC exclusively. We port our
code among QNX4, Linux and NTO. By using GCC, we reduce the set of
compiler front-ends from 3 to 2. I can’t imagine it really matters
much, but I also can’t come up with a good reason why QCC exists at
all.
Regards,
Andrew
–
cburgess@qnx.com
Andrew Thomas <Andrew@cogent.ca> wrote:
Previously, William M. Derby Jr. wrote in qdn.public.qnxrtp.devtools:
I still would like to know if the general user community is using qcc
or sticking to gcc…
If you’re starting a poll, we’re using GCC exclusively. We port our
code among QNX4, Linux and NTO. By using GCC, we reduce the set of
compiler front-ends from 3 to 2. I can’t imagine it really matters
much, but I also can’t come up with a good reason why QCC exists at
all.
Well, cc is the Posix front-end. But under a QNX4 system, cc knows how
to invoke the Watcom tools, to produce QNX4 executables – and we had
systems where you might want to do either. So, we renamed the “cc for
NTO” qcc, to distinguish the two. Now, I think under RTP, cc is the
same as qcc – and while qcc need not exist, it does so for backwards
compatibility with people who got used to using qcc under the QNX4
X-development setup.
-David
QNX Training Services
dagibbs@qnx.com
Markus Loffler <loffler@ces.clemson.edu> wrote:
I’m using cc. It seems the most generic one. Any reason to prefer gcc or qcc
to cc?
No reason to prefer qcc. gcc options can get a lot messier, but you might
get finer control – of course, you can always pass those options on through
to gcc yourself with the -Wc, syntax.
-David
–
QNX Training Services
dagibbs@qnx.com
Not to mention that a) there is whole lot of makefiles using gcc and b)
if you write a multi-platform stuff you can’t count on ‘cc’ options
compatibility which is the reason for a) 
David Gibbs wrote:
Markus Loffler <> loffler@ces.clemson.edu> > wrote:
I’m using cc. It seems the most generic one. Any reason to prefer gcc or qcc
to cc?
No reason to prefer qcc. gcc options can get a lot messier, but you might
get finer control – of course, you can always pass those options on through
to gcc yourself with the -Wc, syntax.
-David
–
QNX Training Services
dagibbs@qnx.com
<!doctype html public “-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en”>
David Gibbs a écrit :
Markus Loffler <> wrote:
> I'm using cc. It seems the most generic one. Any reason to prefer
gcc or qcc
> to cc?
No reason to prefer qcc. gcc options can get a lot messier, but
you might
get finer control -- of course, you can always pass those options on
through
to gcc yourself with the -Wc, syntax.
-David
--
QNX Training Services
So, it may be good to modify the gcc](http://qdn.qnx.com/support/docs/neutrino_qrp/dev_tools/gcc.html%22%3Egcc)
doc (chapter Description) where we can read:
'We recommend you use qcc instead of gcc to compile and link your programs.'
Alain.
On Fri, 09 Feb 2001 14:20:33 -0600, Igor Kovalenko
Igor.Kovalenko@motorola.com> > wrote:
Not to mention that a) there is whole lot of makefiles using gcc and b)
if you write a multi-platform stuff you can’t count on ‘cc’ options
compatibility which is the reason for a) >
I guess this was the conclusion I was coming to as well…
Then again I just changed my whole source tree over to
qcc during my port from QNX4… sigh…
Thanks for the comments guys,
-Bill
David Gibbs wrote:
Markus Loffler <> loffler@ces.clemson.edu> > wrote:
I’m using cc. It seems the most generic one. Any reason to prefer gcc or qcc
to cc?
No reason to prefer qcc. gcc options can get a lot messier, but you might
get finer control – of course, you can always pass those options on through
to gcc yourself with the -Wc, syntax.
-David
–
QNX Training Services
dagibbs@qnx.com
I though qcc was usefull to select which platform (x86,ppc,mips) you want
to build for? Can it be also done with gcc?
“Colin Burgess” <cburgess@qnx.com> wrote in message
news:961f2l$ccm$1@nntp.qnx.com…
Markus Loffler <> loffler@ces.clemson.edu> > wrote:
I’m using cc. It seems the most generic one. Any reason to prefer gcc or
qcc
to cc?
Markus
Under QNX 6, cc is a link to qcc
“Andrew Thomas” <> Andrew@cogent.ca> > wrote in message
news:> Voyager.010209130952.67985456D@andrewhome.cogent.ca> …
Previously, William M. Derby Jr. wrote in qdn.public.qnxrtp.devtools:
I still would like to know if the general user community is using qcc
or sticking to gcc…
If you’re starting a poll, we’re using GCC exclusively. We port our
code among QNX4, Linux and NTO. By using GCC, we reduce the set of
compiler front-ends from 3 to 2. I can’t imagine it really matters
much, but I also can’t come up with a good reason why QCC exists at
all.
Regards,
Andrew
\
cburgess@qnx.com
Mario Charest <mcharest@void_zinformatic.com> wrote:
I though qcc was usefull to select which platform (x86,ppc,mips) you want
to build for? Can it be also done with gcc?
You can use ntox86-gcc vs ntoppc-gcc or gcc -Bntox86 vs gcc -Bntoppc
“Colin Burgess” <> cburgess@qnx.com> > wrote in message
news:961f2l$ccm$> 1@nntp.qnx.com> …
Markus Loffler <> loffler@ces.clemson.edu> > wrote:
I’m using cc. It seems the most generic one. Any reason to prefer gcc or
qcc
to cc?
Markus
Under QNX 6, cc is a link to qcc
“Andrew Thomas” <> Andrew@cogent.ca> > wrote in message
news:> Voyager.010209130952.67985456D@andrewhome.cogent.ca> …
Previously, William M. Derby Jr. wrote in qdn.public.qnxrtp.devtools:
I still would like to know if the general user community is using qcc
or sticking to gcc…
If you’re starting a poll, we’re using GCC exclusively. We port our
code among QNX4, Linux and NTO. By using GCC, we reduce the set of
compiler front-ends from 3 to 2. I can’t imagine it really matters
much, but I also can’t come up with a good reason why QCC exists at
all.
Regards,
Andrew
\
cburgess@qnx.com
–
cburgess@qnx.com