Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

GCC 3.0.2 Is Out

Posted by timothy on from the gee-see-sea dept.

anotherworld writes: "GCC 3.0.2 is out. That's good news for me, since I am having trouble compiling the 2.4.13 kernel with 3.0.1 (internal error) AND 2.96 (under investigation)... so I can try a new one :) But where is that good old 2.95.x? I just can't find it at the moment! Really, well done guys!" The site says this is mostly a bugfix release, but if you need those particular bugfixes, please use one of the mirrors. And remember, they do take appreciation is cold, hard cash, too :)

10 of 22 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Let me get this straight... by doconnor · · Score: 1

    Seeing as they are generally not getting paid to put out these compilers, I think thanks are still in order dispite the imperfections.

  2. Re:Let me get this straight... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    9 times out of 10, if gcc 3.x won't compile your code, its not gcc3's fault, especally if its C++ code.

    gcc3 is far better about standards than any previous release.

  3. 2.95.x by Ridge2001 · · Score: 3, Informative
    But where is that good old 2.95.x? I just can't find it at the moment!

    Huh?

    ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/releases/gcc-2.95.3

  4. KDE by Torulf · · Score: 1

    Will it compile KDE by now? Could anybody enlighten me on this?

  5. minor bugfixes by vlad_petric · · Score: 1

    gcc 3.0 needs "major bugfixes", not minor ones, especially in the c++ compiler.

    --

    The Raven

  6. Re:Let me get this straight... by Arandir · · Score: 2

    Will it compile ISO Standard C++? That's all I care about. If it detects nonstandard code in my stuff, then I can fix my stuff.

    I can't wait for the day when a configure script says "g++ x.y found, no further compiler checks needed."

    --
    A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
  7. binary size by rv101 · · Score: 1

    From the same source code, gcc3 creates a binary three times as large as the one created with gcc2.95:

    $ make
    g++-2.95 -O3 -otexte.gcc.2.95 texte.C -L/usr/X11R6/lib -lGL -lX11
    g++-3.0 -O3 -otexte.gcc.3 texte.C -L/usr/X11R6/lib -lGL -lX11

    $ ll
    203 Makefile
    12760 texte.C
    12614 texte.gcc.2.95
    29899 texte.gcc.3

    1. Re:binary size by ChadN · · Score: 2

      Can you show us the sizes of the "stripped" binaries? Also, I just compiled my C++ program w/ 3.0.2, and it was the same size as 2.95.4 (prerelease), to within 0.1%. However, I'm not making heavy use of templates. Without seeing the source, we can only speculate as to your specific results...

      --
      "It's overkill, of course. But you can never have too much overkill." - Anonymous Slashdot Coward
    2. Re:binary size by sir99 · · Score: 1

      I have noticed on some small programs that -Os actually made the binary bigger than -O3! Also, stripping the binaries produced with 2.95 and 3.0 doesn't reduce the size disparity.

      --
      The ocean parts and the meteors come down
      Laid out in amber, baby.
  8. C++ by akula1 · · Score: 1

    Anybody used it for any c++ code. does it work any better then the other 3.x's?