Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

gcc3 Available for Mac OS X

Posted by pudge on from the bring-on-that-jagwire-compilin-lovin dept.

drc writes in that MacSlash notes that, according to the Apple gcc3 list, "The gcc3 project has been 'closed' for Jaguar, meaning that at this point there is almost no chance that there will be any further changes to the compiler that ships with Jaguar." If you really want to play, break out CVS and get to it.

24 comments

  1. Excellent.... by Profane+Motherfucker · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Now the bitching can be more evenly distributed between the Mandrake 9 beta thread and this. It's good to see the potential for a little load balancing.

    Oh, but it will break everything! GCC is evil, why does GNU have to do this?

    1. Re:Excellent.... by noselasd · · Score: 1

      That goes only for C++(Cbloatbloat)

  2. Default compiler on the Mac? by dfgdfgdfg · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Can anyone comment on whether Gcc is the default compiler on the Mac? Is the Mac kernel compiled with Gcc? I think BSD also uses Gcc. Does that make Gcc the most used compiler on all systems?

    --
    -- 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Sc3 de4: 4.Se4: Sd7 5.Sg5 Sgf6 6.Ld3 e6 7.S1f3 h6 8.Se6:
    1. Re:Default compiler on the Mac? by norwoodites · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yes it is the most used compiler, because it is the most portable. You can use it on Solaris, HPUX, AIX, Linux, all the BSD's, Hurd, Mac OS X (Darwin), and Cgywin, and also VMS, yes VMS (don't know if it usable). You can use it to cross compile to a lot of different processors. You even can make a gcc on a cross compiler. It compiles to rs6000(ppc and power), x86, ia64, x68-64, criss, alpha, sparc, aparc64 and others.

      It can compile C, C++, Objective-C, Ada, and on some Java®.

      PS this message use UTF-8.

    2. Re:Default compiler on the Mac? by Matthias+Wiesmann · · Score: 3, Interesting
      The gcc compiler is shipped by default on Mac OS X and is also the compiler of Apple's IDE: project builder. Darwin is usually compiled with gcc. So I suppose that you could say that gcc is the default compiler of OS X.

      I don't know what part of the OS X binary are actually compiled with gcc, probably a large majority. It seems that the Finder (OS X's graphical shell) is built using the powerplant framework, and therefore probably compiled using metrowerk's compiler.

      I also heard some rumors that parts of the kernel where compiled using metrowerk's compiler because it does a better job of optimising PPC code, then again this is a rumor.

    3. Re:Default compiler on the Mac? by joib · · Score: 2

      ...also VMS, yes VMS (don't know if it usable)

      But not for long. According to GCC 3.3 ChangesVMS is obsoleted, which I think means they are going to remove it for the next release after that.

      Of course, in GCC 3.1, which is the GCC branch used in Jaguar, VMS support is still there. :)


      PS this message use UTF-8.
      It will indeed be a good day when UTF-8 has replaced ISO-8859-* and various other encodings. Actually, I read that the Red Hat 8.0 beta is supposed to use UTF-8 as its default charset, so maybe it'll happen sooner than we think!

    4. Re:Default compiler on the Mac? by norwoodites · · Score: 3, Interesting

      No the finder is compiled with gcc, but I the only prove I have is that the name mangling in the Finder is that of gcc 2.95.2 which just proves that the name mangling is the same.

      PowerPlant Framework has been compiled with gcc by Apple also. None of the kernel is compiled with metrowerk's because the kernel uses gcc extensions and can be compiled for x86.

    5. Re:Default compiler on the Mac? by norwoodites · · Score: 2

      VMS is obsoleted only on vax, vax-*-vms* on alpha, the support is still there.

    6. Re:Default compiler on the Mac? by roccotigger · · Score: 1

      This makes a lot of sense, since back when Jobs was with NeXT, they used gcc as the compiler. They also used ObjectC as the language that a lot of the OS was written in, which is what you are seeing in MacOS X now.

    7. Re:Default compiler on the Mac? by Lally+Singh · · Score: 2
      I don't believe any part of OS X is compiled with metrowerk's compiler, but I'm probably wrong.

      However, the codewarrior compiler create significantly better PPC code than gcc. This probably has to do with the fact that metrowerks is a motorola company and the compiler writers can just pick up a phone and talk to the cpu designers...

      --
      Care about electronic freedom? Consider donating to the EFF!
    8. Re:Default compiler on the Mac? by Tumbleweed · · Score: 2

      Keep in mind that not all languages are available on all platforms. For instance, Objective-C support was removed in gcc for Cygwin. Unfortunate, as I was wanting to learn Objective-C in the time it takes me to save up for a Mac. *sigh*

      What the reasoning beyond this decision was, I couldn't hazard a guess.

    9. Re:Default compiler on the Mac? by norwoodites · · Score: 2

      It is not removed for Cygwin, it was just not compiled when Cygwin released binaries for it.

      You can still download the source for gcc and compile it and get objective-c support. If you want a clone of the OpenStep libraries (Cocoa) you can download GNUStep.

    10. Re:Default compiler on the Mac? by Tumbleweed · · Score: 2

      Awesome. Thanks for the tip! I just remembered I have a spare machine laying around doing nothing - I think maybe I should put Darwin/x86 on it. :)

    11. Re:Default compiler on the Mac? by benh57 · · Score: 2

      PowerPlant compiles in project builder. It just requires a few tweaks, apparently.

  3. first OS based on gcc 3? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    AFAIK, all the major Linux and BSD distributions are still built using 2.9x versions. I've got to give credit to Apple for being the first major vendor out the door with a gcc3 based distribution. It's about time somebody started pushing the 3.x series forward. As a C++ developer, I've grown increasingly tired of dealing with the bugs, limitations and obsolete libraries of the various 2.9x trees.

    1. Re:first OS based on gcc 3? by Clue4All · · Score: 2, Informative

      You're assuming it beats RedHat and Mandrake out the door with their new releases. You never know, they're scheduled for early fall as well.

      --

      Is your browser retarded?
    2. Re:first OS based on gcc 3? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about the more customizable distributions of Linux? For instance, Gentoo is almost there. Right now I'm running a pure GCC 3.1 Gentoo Linux system. Bootstrapped with 3.1, everything compiled with 3.1 (optimized). Does that count?

  4. Way Out Of Date by robbieduncan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is way out of date. The most recently available developer tools for OSX 10.1 (April iirc) contained GCC 3 and instructions for telling ProjectBuilder to use it instead of GCC 2 (USE_GCC3 = YES iirc). It also contained a ban on distibuting apps compiled with it as Apple were still testing it fully and making minor changes. All that has happened is that this process has completed and Apple are now happy that GCC 3 works correctly.

    1. Re:Way Out Of Date by whee · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's not way out of date. The GCC delivered in the April developer tools is version 1041, based on gcc version 3.1 20020105 (experimental). This is version 1151; Quite a bit newer, and also signifies the code freeze for the version that will ship with Jaguar.

  5. August 24th by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    Not early fall in this timezone anyway.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  6. Debian Hurd uses gcc3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And since it is obviously the most popular of the bunch I'm sure its only a matter of time before the rest come around.

    Debian GNU/Hurd - "We are Legion"