Slashdot Mirror
GCC 4.0 Preview
Reducer2001 writes "News.com is running a story previewing GCC 4.0. A quote from the article says, '(included will be) technology to compile programs written in Fortran 95, an updated version of a decades-old programming language still popular for scientific and technical tasks, Henderson said. And software written in the C++ programming language should run faster--"shockingly better" in a few cases.'"
"...software written in the C++ programming language should run faster--..."
Is this the programmer's way of saying it will run at some speed less than faster?
Screenshots, screenshots! I need screenshots people!!!
(I'm especially excited by the possibility of random compiler incompatibilities!)
If Fortran 95 was released in '95, and it's now 2005, isn't it a decade old language? Let's not get ahead of ourselves here....
It does take longer to compile C++. The solution to this is to keep Slashdot open in a browser. Back in the days before Slashdot, when compiling took even longer, programmers actually used to go ape-shit watching the compiler. We live in wonderful times.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
Hands up, everybody who remembers when "g++" was a shell script!
...
Are you going to rob us? At first I thought that was your joke, but the more I think about it, the more I wonder if, being a part of the gcc team, you are inserting insidious code to look for credit card and bank account numbers on the disk during compiles and use steganography to embed them in executables; no one else would know about them, and all you'd need is a robot crawling download pages, looking for binaries with some magic code somewhere
The little bit of extra disk thrashing during the combined compile and search would never be noticed, and no one looking at compiled machine lanuage ever wonders why it is so odd looking. They just assume it's because of some new fangled optimization.
My god you are devious rascals!
Infuriate left and right
And when they compile GCC 4.0 with GCC 4.0, it will be even fasterer!
1's and 0's should be free.
Don't all compilers convert a program's source code into binary instructions?
Nope.
Oh, did you mean all SOURCE CODE compilers?
See, the word compiler was around before computers, and is only synonymous with "source code compiler" to geeks like us.
Therefore in your attempt to be pedantic, you clearly were not being pedantic enough, thus the joke is on you.
Ha-ha...
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
"They that can give up high performance to obtain a little temporary security deserve neither performance nor security."
--not Benjamin Franklin
My other first post is car post.
namespaces::have::a::lot::more::dots::than::packag es
I'm waiting for the WYRMWYW (What You Really Meant When You Wrote) technology to be incorporated into GCC, so it will fix all my bugs as it compiles. Then I'll upgrade.
++Informative? ... so you want the informative mods before the comment is read?
Wasn't meant to be a joke... I know they build GCC with GCC, but I don't suppose they could have built the front-end with GCC 4.0 yet, due to the bugs still present. So current speed up is probably based on compilation with GCC 3.4.
Don't know why I bother writing this, none's going to read it now...
1's and 0's should be free.