HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: smiley@akasha.eng.hou.compaq.com (Colin Smiley)
Subject: Re: Rating of gcc in Unix Review
Organization: Compaq Computer Corporation
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 18:24:22 GMT

In article <156eo7INN6d3@betty.cs.widener.edu>, brendan@cs.widener.edu (Brendan Kehoe) writes:
|> This month's issue of Unix Review compares four C compilers (MetaWare,
|> GCC, Sun's unbundled C, and Lucid C).  They really trash GCC, giving
|> it F's on Installation because it's distributed as source, and "N/A"
|> on documentation, claiming it includes none.  (They define
|> documentation as printed and bound books, not electronic, apparently;
|> at least to the extent that Sun's Answerbook will fall under the
|> umbrella.)  In the area of overall performance, they claim MetaWare
|> and Lucid lead the pack, with GCC behind Sun's unbundled C.  Hmm.
|> 
|> Had they compared GCC with respect to how Cygnus distributes it (with
|> much of what they were looking for in the area of really quick
|> turnaround between cutting the shrink-wrap and being able to compile),
|> the report card probably would've looked different in a few places, I
|> think.
|> 
|> Really strange, their approach with the testing.


I agree.  I was quite disappointed with the treatment GCC got from
Unix Review, but then I thought about the direction the reviewer was
coming from.  The reviewer, Tim Parker, heads TPCI Test Labs, a group
which specializes in software testing and quality assurance.  The fact
that GCC is free, and has no real licensing w.r.t. # of copies at your
site didn't seem to matter to him.  It seems to have been mentioned in
passing.  All of the other products that were reviewed have all kinds
of fun limitations related to licensing.

The documentation issue also irked me somewhat.  Is this Tim above
figuring out how to read texinfo files?  Maybe future releases of GNU
software should come with a simple browser?  (or they could go call
emacs and have that read it...unfortunately, emacs is not
everywhere, for as much as I wish it were...)

One last thing that bothered me is that although the author picked
Sun's C package, and mentions that it's not quite ANSI compatible, he
fails to mention that GCC is (he suggests MetaWare's C instead).  

Let's face it, GCC has already proven itself to me...just compile
X11R5 with it on a sparc (this is running SunOS4.1.1).  And I don't
have to pay $2000 a seat for each copy either.


Colin


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colin Smiley, Compaq Computer Corporation, Houston, Texas 77269-2000
e-mail: smiley@compaq.com                           Phone: (713) 378-8426
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer:  Any opinons expressed here do not reflect the opinions of
Compaq Computer Corp.  They make computers.  I make noise.

Lines: 12
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 15:33:22 MDT
From: gritton@alaska.et.byu.edu (Jamie Gritton)
Organization: Brigham Young University, Provo UT USA
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Rating of gcc in Unix Review
Reply-To: gritton@byu.edu

brendan@cs.widener.edu (Brendan Kehoe) writes:

> This month's issue of Unix Review compares four C compilers (MetaWare,
> GCC, Sun's unbundled C, and Lucid C).  They really trash GCC...

> Really strange, their approach with the testing.

Unix Review is a trade magazine, and will thus bend over backwards to
imply that the only good software comes from the vendors (who are the
magazine's sole support).
--
James Gritton - gritton@byu.edu - I disclaim
From: david@campfire.stl.mo.US (David J Camp)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: GNU's NOT Unix!!!
Date: 22 Jul 92 22:15:08 GMT
Reply-To: "David J Camp" <campfire!david@wupost.wustl.edu>
Distribution: gnu
Organization: Gnus Not Usenet

On 22 Jul 92 15:56:55 GMT, (Doug Urner) wubios!wobble!dlu@saqqara.cis.ohio-state.edu wrote:
> mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes:
> 
> >It's worth noting that one of the grounds of the suit is that BSDI's
> >phone numebr was advertised originally as 1-800-ITS-UNIX.  That's
> >pretty clearly trademark infringment.
> 
> Assuming that the "U-word" hasn't gone the way of klenex and other
> trademarks that have become plain old everyday words.  BSDI is not the
> first to use a phone number "expressable by the letters UNIX" nor,
> according to my online phonebook, are they the last.
> 
> Perhaps we should be thinking of a new name for GNU?

Of course not.  GNU's Not Unix!  -David-

> 
> 
> -- 
> Doug Urner, dlu@wobble   "They tear down our comrades like leaves from a tree,
> 1613 Moore Street         leaves from a tree, leaves from a tree, but the
> Bellingham, WA  98226     tree still stands, its roots locked to the land."
> 206/676-5759                              -- Song of the Exile,  Barry Guilder


# david%campfire@wupost.wustl.edu    ^     David J. Camp                #
# wupost.wustl.edu!campfire!david  < * >   +1 314 382 0584              #
# campfire!david@wupost.wustl.edu    v     "God loves material things." #
#         I am a member of the League for Programming Freedom.          #
From: wierda@ltb.ltb.bso.nl (Gerben Wierda)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: gdbm on VMS?
Date: 21 Jul 92 14:40:57 GMT
Organization: BSO/LT, Baarn, The Netherlands

Has anyone compiled gdbm 1.5 on VMS? If so, can you send me any diffs?

Thanks,


-- 
wierda@ltb.bso.nl (Gerben Wierda) || I speak for myself and not for my employer.
(+31) 2154 84415/(+31) 35 833539  || Support the League for Programming Freedom!
	"If you don't know where you are going, any road will take you there."
	Lewis Carroll, "Alice in Wonderland".
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: smiley@akasha.eng.hou.compaq.com (Colin Smiley)
Subject: Re: Rating of gcc in Unix Review
Organization: Compaq Computer Corporation
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 16:31:20 GMT

In article <l7e7f6INNm9n@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (David Chase) writes:
|> In article <1992Jul29.182422.12287@twisto.eng.hou.compaq.com> smiley@akasha.eng.hou.compaq.com (Colin Smiley) writes:
|> >Let's face it, GCC has already proven itself to me...just compile
|> >X11R5 with it on a sparc (this is running SunOS4.1.1).  And I don't
|> >have to pay $2000 a seat for each copy either.
|> 
|> I realize that people don't want to see advertising sort of stuff on
|> this news group, but the above is incorrect, in that it implies that
|> SunPro's compilers cost $2000/seat.  The correct price is $995 (USA$).
|> This includes compilers for both 4.1.1 and 5.0 (aka Solaris 1.0 and
|> 2.0).  Read the advertisements.  (According to the blurb sheet that I
|> tracked down, this offer is good until September 30 for compilers
|> purchased from SunExpress.  After that, or if you buy from SMCC, I
|> cannot say, because I do not know).


My mistake.  Sun's CC is listed in the Unix Review article as costing
from $995-$2000.  Of course they list GCC as $200-$230(All $ amounts
are US).  They should have included the fact that it's free if you
have FTP.

I can't remember where I got the $2000 figure...I wasn't just trying to
take the worst price, honest. :-)



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colin Smiley, Compaq Computer Corporation, Houston, Texas 77269-2000
e-mail: smiley@compaq.com                           Phone: (713) 378-8426
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer:  Any opinons expressed here do not reflect the opinions of
Compaq Computer Corp.  They make computers.  I make noise.
From: mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: GCC licensing issues.
Date: 23 Jul 92 18:33:02 GMT
Organization: Free Software Foundation, Cambridge, MA

In article <4016@news.duke.edu> magidj@cellbio.duke.edu (Jonathan Magid) writes:

   hi,
   the executables that gcc creates have no limitations in the
   way that they are sold and/or copied, other than the ones
   you apply in your own copyright, i.e. the GNU copyleft doesn't
   effect it, as long as you don't link it with any gnu libraries.

   if you do, than it is covered by the gnu library lisence which
   requires taht you provide the object code for your modules and
   the source for the library (so that one could modify the library
   and relink if one desired)

This is not strictly accurate.  Some libraries are covered by the GPL,
and so you can't distribute the linked binary unless you provide full
source code.  Some libraries are covered by the GLPL, which allows you
to do what Mr. Magid describes in his second paragraph.  Some
libraries are considerably more lenient.  Into this category falls
gnulib (distributed as part of GCC).  

What this means is that you should look at the copyright notice for
the particular library you are using, and follow its conditions.

--
Michael I. Bushnell             |		Benedictus qui venit
+1 617 625 4518 (H)            -+-                       in
+1 617 253 8568 (W)             |                      Nomine
mib@gnu.ai.mit.edu              |                      Domini
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: del@giant.INTraNet.COM (G. Del Merritt)
Subject: re: Huh?
Organization: GNUs Not Usenet
Distribution: gnu
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 04:35:07 GMT

In-reply-to: UUCP%"amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU" 's message of 22-JUL-1992 19:08:47.78
>Whilest browsing through a list of acronyms I came across
>
>INSTITUTE       INSTITUTE's Name Shows That It's Totally Unrelated To EMACS
>
>No doubt.  Does anyone have any idea what INSTITUTE *is*?  Is it one of
>the FINE, JOVE, FRED family of editors?  Is it something even more
>sadistic?

I would posit that it is derived from Emacs's(/Stallman's) long time haunt:
	The Massachussetts INSTITUTE of Technology

which is indeed, in the opinion of many of its alumni, quite sadistic. 

But don't believe everything you read...

Del Merritt '82.5	del@IntraNet.com	ccavax!giant!del
IntraNet, Inc., 255 Washington Street, Newton, MA  02158
Voice: 617-527-7020; FAX: 617-527-6779
Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:2553 alt.religion.emacs:252
From: MEBEB@LIVERPOOL.AC.UK
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,alt.religion.emacs
Subject: Re: Anyone want to volunteer to "teach" elisp?
Date: 22 Jul 92 12:53:56 GMT
Organization: University of Liverpool

I'd be interested in the idea of taking such a course.

Kev
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: wolfgang@wsrcc.com (Wolfgang S. Rupprecht)
Subject: Re: Unix Review of GCC
Organization: W S Rupprecht Computer Consulting, Fremont CA
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 18:02:06 GMT

patrick@ERC.MsState.Edu writes:
>I haven't seen the review yet, but it sounds pretty weak.
>Anyone have their address so we can write letters

Their machine name is "ureview.com".  The only user that I have seen
posting to usenet is "andrew@ureview.com".  

To me this implies that the logins are on a firstname basis.  I would
try sending mail the <reviewers-first-name>@ureview.com.

-wolfgang
-- 
Wolfgang Rupprecht    wolfgang@wsrcc.com (or) wsrcc!wolfgang
Snail Mail:           39469 Gallaudet Drive, Fremont, CA 94538-4511
From: burley@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Craig Burley)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: GNU Fortran?
Date: 21 Jul 92 15:33:32 GMT
Organization: Free Software Foundation 545 Tech Square Cambridge, MA 02139
In-reply-to: pascal@nextasy.physics.mcmaster.ca's message of 20 Jul 92 19:13:02 GMT

In article <1992Jul20.191302.22408@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca> pascal@nextasy.physics.mcmaster.ca (Pascal Gaudette) writes:

   Is there a GNU Fortran compiler in the works?

Yes.

   Please e-mail; I don't read this group very often.

Done.
--

James Craig Burley, Software Craftsperson    burley@gnu.ai.mit.edu
Member of the League for Programming Freedom (LPF)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: andyh@cimage.com (Andy Hore)
Subject: GCC licensing issues.
Organization: Cimage Corporation
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 17:25:09 GMT

Hi,
   I hope somebody can help me with a little problem I have. It may be
that I'm just a little confused about licensing issues, but it may
not, so I think it's best to ask.

The problem I have is this. I've been using gcc to compile a program
that is to be sold commercially, and I don't want to infringe any
copyrite issues the GNU. I read the COPYRITE.lib file that came with
gcc-2.2.2  and thought that it implied that linking with libgcc would
mean that I would infringe on copyrite laws. Is this correct thinking
or not? If so, do you have any idea how I can resolve this problem,
short of getting a new compiler?

   I'm not currently linking with the GNU libc replacement, if that
makes any difference.

many thanks in advance,

Andy.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail: andyh@dgsi.cimage.com

   __                  _    ,
  /  )        /       ' )  /
 /--/ __   __/ , ,     /--/ __,_  _
/  (_/) )_(_(_(_/_    /  (_(_) (_(< o
               /
              '
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail: andyh@dgsi.cimage.com

   __                  _    ,
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: jonathan@chpc.utexas.edu (Jonathan Thornburg)
Subject: reviews (was: Re: Unix Review of GCC)
Summary: "editor@ureview.com" may be a symlink to /dev/null
Keywords: Unix Review gcc test C compiler E-mail answer respond /dev/null SPEC92
Organization: U of Texas at Austin / Physics Dept / Center for Relativity
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 02:29:20 GMT

Like almost everyone else in this thread, I agree that the Unix Review
C compiler test was botched: the reviewer didn't read the (extensive
and very well written) gcc documentation, didn't appreciate the value
of ANSI C, and didn't realise that in practice free software has
*superb* support from the net, even without Cygnus et al.

However...  In article [some article which I lost the attribution to],
[someone] wrote:
>The e-mail address for the UNIX REVIEW editors is: editor@ureview.com

About 6 weeks ago I sent a letter to this address, suggesting that they
should at least report SPEC92int and SPEC92fp separately, rather than
a lumped "SPECMARK" (89 or 92 unspecified), and preferably report all
the individual SPEC92 tests.  I also suggested that they dump dhrystone,
and whetstone because of their susceptability to artificial "boosting"
by compiler tricks that don't help real-world programs.  [Cf. Hennessey
and Patterson "Computer Architecture" chapter 2.]

To this date, I have recieved no reply, not even an acknowledgment
of receipt.  Perhaps "editor@ureview.com" is a symlink to /dev/null?

All this said, on the whole I have found Unix Review to be the best of
the free-subscription general-unix-workstation magazines (Unix World,
Unix Review, Unix Today, ...).  I find that their reviews and columns
are moderately detailed and fairly good.  Their C/C++, X, and networking
columns can by no stretch of the imagination be described as for
"computer illiterates" -- they are often very technical.  Their software
and hardware reviews give a moderate level of technical detail, and
their reviewers at least know enough not to use awk(1) as a floating
point benchmark (which is what Unix World once did).  Moreover, they
do occasion say *bad* things about commercial products.  (Eg in a recent
review they had some rather unkind words for SGI's emphatically non-free
support policies.)

It's not perfect, and the gcc-review botch has certainly lowered my
rating of it, but for me Unix Review is still worth reading.

- Jonathan Thornburg
  <jonathan@einstein.ph.utexas.edu> or <jonathan@hermes.chpc.utexas.edu>
  University of Texas at Austin / Physics Dept / Center for Relativity
  and (for a few more months) U of British Columbia / {Astronomy,Physics}
From: mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: AT&T sues BSDI
Date: 21 Jul 92 16:17:29 GMT
Organization: Free Software Foundation, Cambridge, MA



It's worth noting that one of the grounds of the suit is that BSDI's
phone numebr was advertised originally as 1-800-ITS-UNIX.  That's
pretty clearly trademark infringment.

--
Michael I. Bushnell             |		Benedictus qui venit
+1 617 625 4518 (H)            -+-                       in
+1 617 253 8568 (W)             |                      Nomine
mib@gnu.ai.mit.edu              |                      Domini
From: chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (David Chase)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Rating of gcc in Unix Review
Date: 29 Jul 1992 22:38:30 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: rbbb

In article <1992Jul29.182422.12287@twisto.eng.hou.compaq.com> smiley@akasha.eng.hou.compaq.com (Colin Smiley) writes:
>Let's face it, GCC has already proven itself to me...just compile
>X11R5 with it on a sparc (this is running SunOS4.1.1).  And I don't
>have to pay $2000 a seat for each copy either.

I realize that people don't want to see advertising sort of stuff on
this news group, but the above is incorrect, in that it implies that
SunPro's compilers cost $2000/seat.  The correct price is $995 (USA$).
This includes compilers for both 4.1.1 and 5.0 (aka Solaris 1.0 and
2.0).  Read the advertisements.  (According to the blurb sheet that I
tracked down, this offer is good until September 30 for compilers
purchased from SunExpress.  After that, or if you buy from SMCC, I
cannot say, because I do not know).

This is, of course, still an infinite factor higher than the list
price of gcc, but you knew that already.

Feel free to post unflattering facts about Sun's products, but please
be sure that they are facts.  Someone here ought to have a look at the
Unix Review article to comment on that, but that is probably Not My
Job (meaning I should be spending my time doing things like ensuring
that our compilers come out on top in any benchmark, no matter how
carelessly done.)

David Chase
Sun
Newsgroups: gnu.gdb.bug
From: edelsohn@sccs.syr.edu (David Edelsohn)
Subject: gdb-4.6/readline -- ~/inputrc or ~/.inputrc
Organization: GNUs Not Usenet
Distribution: gnu
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 14:24:28 GMT

	The libreadline library still erroneously reads keybindings from
~/inputrc instead of ~/.inputrc as mentioned in the source code comments as
well as in documentation.  This bug existed in gdb-4.5 as well.  The
affected file is readline.c:

*** readline.c- Tue Jul 21 18:21:29 1992
--- readline.c  Tue Jul 21 16:24:13 1992
***************
*** 5656,5662 ****
  /* Don't know what to do, but this is a guess */
  static char *last_readline_init_file = "/INPUTRC";
  #else
! static char *last_readline_init_file = "~/inputrc";
  #endif
  
  /* Re-read the current keybindings file. */
--- 5656,5662 ----
  /* Don't know what to do, but this is a guess */
  static char *last_readline_init_file = "/INPUTRC";
  #else
! static char *last_readline_init_file = "~/.inputrc";
  #endif
  
  /* Re-read the current keybindings file. */

===============================================================================
David Edelsohn                                          Dept of Physics
Syracuse Center for Computational Science               201 Physics Bldg
INTERNET: edelsohn@sccs.Syr.EDU                         Syracuse, NY 13244-1130
"If G-D had wanted us to vote, he would have given us candidates" -- Jay Leno

Xref: sparky gnu.gdb.bug:910 gnu.g++.bug:1240
From: joe@consolve.com (Joe Shapiro)
Newsgroups: gnu.gdb.bug,gnu.g++.bug
Subject: Anonymous struct printing bug in either gdb or g++
Date: 27 Jul 92 22:17:14 GMT
Followup-To: poster
To: bug-g++@prep.ai.mit.edu, bug-gdb@prep.ai.mit.edu

Hi, Folks
    I'm not sure whether this is a g++ or gdb bug, so I'm sending this report
to both bug mailing lists.  gdb 4.6 (and 4.5) can't find the type of a g++
anonymous (i.e. untagged) struct.  Here's an example:



struct
{
    int a, b;
} anon;


struct named_t
{
    int a, b;
} named;


main()
{
    ++anon.a;
    ++named.a;
}




joe@somalia> g++ -g -v static-bug.cc
Reading specs from /usr/local/lib/gcc-lib/sun4/2.2.2/specs
gcc version 2.2.2
 /usr/local/lib/gcc-lib/sun4/2.2.2/cpp -lang-c++ -undef -D__GNUC__=2 -D__GNUG__=2 -D__cplusplus -Dsparc -Dsun -Dunix -D__sparc__ -D__sun__ -D__unix__ -D__sparc -D__sun -D__unix -g static-bug.cc /usr/tmp/cca00705.i
 /usr/local/lib/gcc-lib/sun4/2.2.2/cc1plus /usr/tmp/cca00705.i -quiet -dumpbase static-bug.cc -g -o /usr/tmp/cca00705.s
 as -o static-bug.o /usr/tmp/cca00705.s
 /usr/local/lib/gcc-lib/sun4/2.2.2/ld -e start -dc -dp /lib/crt0.o -L/usr/local/lib/gcc-lib/sun4/2.2.2 -L/usr/local/lib static-bug.o -lg++ -lgcc -lc -lg -lgcc

/home/joe/gnu-bugs /home/joe/c-saw
joe@somalia> gdb a.out
GDB is free software and you are welcome to distribute copies of it
 under certain conditions; type "show copying" to see the conditions.
There is absolutely no warranty for GDB; type "show warranty" for details.
GDB 4.6, Copyright 1992 Free Software Foundation, Inc...
(gdb) b main
Breakpoint 1 at 0x229c: file static-bug.cc, line 15.
(gdb) r
Starting program: /usr3/joe/gnu-bugs/a.out 

Breakpoint 1, main () at static-bug.cc:15
15          ++anon.a;
(gdb) p anon 
$1 = <unknown struct>
(gdb) p named
$2 = {a = 0, b = 0}
(gdb) q
The program is running.  Quit anyway? (y or n) y
Newsgroups: gnu.gdb.bug
From: jkh@sparc3.lotus.COM (Jordan K Hubbard)
Subject: Problems compiling gdb 4.6 under Solaris 2.
Organization: GNUs Not Usenet
Distribution: gnu
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 11:53:51 GMT

Using the new solaris 2 configuration, here's what I get at the final link:

 coffread.o elfread.o dwarfread.o xcoffread.o mipsread.o core.o inflow.o regex.o    ./../bfd/libbfd.a  ./../readline/libreadline.a -ltermlib ./../mmalloc/libmmalloc.a ./../libiberty/libiberty.a    
Undefined                       first referenced
 symbol                             in file
bcopy                               sparc-tdep.o
sys_siglist                         ./../libiberty/libiberty.a(strsignal.o)
bcmp                                regex.o
index                               putenv.o
rindex                              ./../readline/libreadline.a(readline.o)
bzero                               regex.o
ld: fatal: Symbol referencing errors. No output written to gdb

Other than that, the compilation process went fine.

					Jordan

Newsgroups: gnu.gdb.bug
From: paul@aztec.ucsc.edu (Paul Tatarsky)
Subject: Gdb on Sunos struct print problem?
Reply-To: paul@terra.ucsc.edu
Organization: UC Santa Cruz CIS/CE
Distribution: gnu
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 18:01:11 GMT

Really sorry if this has been asked a thousand times.

I have the following environment:
SunOS 4.1.2
gcc 2.2.2: gcc -v
Reading specs from /usr/local/gnu/lib/gcc-lib/sparc-sun-sunos4.1.1/2.2.2/specs
gcc version 2.2.2
gdb 4.6 with #define GCC_MANGLE_BUG in symtab.c

The basic jist of the problem is that gdb doesn't print struct members
correctly on the suns. Did I screw up somewhere?

Sample code:
foo.c:
 typedef struct {
	int x,y,z;
    } FOO;

    printfoo( FOO foo )
    {
	printf("%d %d %d\n", foo.x, foo.y, foo.z );
    }

    main()
    {
	FOO bar;

	bar.x = 10;
	bar.y = 20;
	bar.z = 30;

	printfoo( bar );
    }

-- 
unix> gcc -g -o foo foo.c 
unix> gdb foo
GDB is free software and you are welcome to distribute copies of it
 under certain conditions; type "show copying" to see the conditions.
There is absolutely no warranty for GDB; type "show warranty" for details.
GDB 4.6, Copyright 1992 Free Software Foundation, Inc...
(gdb) break printfoo
Breakpoint 1 at 0x22a4: file foo.c, line 7.
(gdb) run
Starting program: /auto/terra/b/staff/paul/foo 

Breakpoint 1, printfoo (foo={x = 4194433, y = 8292, z = 8296}) at foo.c:7
7               printf("%d %d %d\n", foo.x, foo.y, foo.z );
(gdb) 


Shouldn't this be (it is on all my other systems):
Breakpoint 1, printfoo (foo={x = 10, y = 20, z = 30}) at foo.c:7
7               printf("%d %d %d\n", foo.x, foo.y, foo.z );

Please reply by email. Thanks in advance.

 Paul Tatarsky         email: paul@terra.ucsc.edu
 UC Santa Cruz
 CIS/CE Board          

Newsgroups: gnu.gdb.bug