Slashdot Mirror
gcc 3.0 Coming Soon to a Computer Near You
An anonymous submitter sent in pointers to a couple of mailing list messages about the imminent release of gcc 3.0. The official word seems to be that 3.0 might be out as early as this weekend.
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Guess what? Everyone that complained about GCC 2.96 being broken (and not reading http://www.bero.org/gcc296.html) despite the fact that their code wasn't C99 complient STILL WON'T COMPILE. Now you can't complain that your code won't work because it's a developmental compiler, you'll actually have to fix it. Numerous examples of this are listed at the above URL, I'd highly suggest you try it out. I have a feeling quite a few people are gonna be red in the face over this one. ;-)
P.S. It's GCC 3.0, FYI.
Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru?
Uh... would it make you happy if they called it version 23.0? Other vendors increase version numbers like there is no tomorrow (makes managers happy, I think), so we should "catch up" to that silliness? What difference does it make?
just seems like more proof that the Open Source development model leads to slower release cycles
What are you smoking? Free software is in continuous release. How long has it been between versions of MS VC? Almost a year and a half now...
a never ending game of catchup
I think if you compare standards compliance, gcc ranks right up there with every other vendor.
I was going to just mod you down, but there is no "-1 duh" moderation.
Ryan T. Sammartino
Ryan T. Sammartino
"Ancora imparo"
Rehat has already incorporated gcc 3.0 into a patch for 7.1 and 7.0 that they are posting as a critical update.
Someone you trust is one of us.
Right, because it's his project. What is your point? Anybody can fork off GCC if they wish. So what?
Since its inception in 1987 there have been 101 released versions of GCC. Microsoft since Quick C has released 11 versions counting all Visual (Quick) C and Visual C++. Counting all of Borland/Inprise's various C and C++ compilers (Turbo, Borland, Builder, OS/2, and Vision) there are 21 versions. Of course those are complete IDE's so you can't really compare them to gcc which is only a compiler. However, I think you get the point. Neither MSVC nor C++ Builder are platform indepenedent so you can throw them in the trash (what is the point of C/C++ if you can't port to a different platform).
Someone you trust is one of us.
You're lucky this isn't comp.lang.c++!!!
It's always
int main()
(in C you have to do "int main(void)") or
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
(as in C).
Unlike C, you don't have to "return 0;" in C++ at the end of main.
It's 11pm, do you know what your deamons are up to?
Umm, ok. Then why does this work:
#include <iostream>void main() {
cout << "Howdy, y'all!" << endl;
}
And that proto for main is in very widespread usage. Maybe the standard says different and it's just all the compiler makers and C++ book writers that are "wrong", heh. Maybe the compilers silently turn void return in to int return 0. Maybe C++ just sucks. ;-)
--
News for geeks in Austin: www.geekaustin.org
News for Geeks in Austin, TX
The correct code would read:
#include
int main()
{
std::cout "Hello all!" std::endl;
}
The main function in C++ should look the same as in C (but may have '()' instead of '(void)').
You should read the C FAQ, sections 11.12, 11.14 and 11.15 at "http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/s11.html".
For an explanation of the 'std::' prefix, please ask comp.lang.c++ or alt.comp.learn.c-c++ about "namespaces".
With GCC, always use -Wall.
It's 11pm, do you know what your deamons are up to?
Maybe the standard says different and it's just all the... C++ book writers that are "wrong", heh.
Yes. Many of the books you'll find in the computer section of your local bookstore are painfully incorrect, often on the most basic topics. It's almost a joke, really, how much money is charged for many books that are full of paper that is too hard and scratchy to use for toilet paper, but not useful as anything else.
The C++ FAQ recommends a few good books on C++, if you're actually interested in learning the language.
Slashdot is jumping the shark. I'm just driving the boat.
well, I do know about them, I just omitted the "use namespace std;" bit because I was feeling lazy ;-)
thanks for the url, btw.
--
News for geeks in Austin: www.geekaustin.org
News for Geeks in Austin, TX