Slashdot Mirror
GCC 4.0.0 Released
busfahrer writes "Version 4.0.0 of the GNU Compiler Collection has been released. You can read the changelog or you can download the source tarball. The new version finally features SSA for trees, allowing for a completely new optimization framework." The changelog is pretty lengthy, and there's updates for every language supported from Ada to Java in addition to the usual flavors of C.
Is it just me or did the jump from version 3 to 4 happen a lot faster than the one from 2 to 3?
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
of the 2.95 -> 3.0 transition.
Not a C coder myself, (sticking mainly to perl).. I've just got to ask, what are SSA trees, and what benefit do they serve?
da w00t. mtfnpy?
reading tfa and changelog intrigued me. optimisations aside im curious if this will be better able to thread on the new multi-core systems coming out, as tls has been spotty till 3.3 and glibc 2. maybe native xd support coming soon too?
also, the c++ side makes me feel optimistic about ongoing support, which had been a big problem till 3.4.
yes im x86/64 centric.
The first rule of USENET is you do not talk about USENET.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but most Linux distributions are still i386 right? It's only the people who use Gentoo who actually compile everything with i686 options right? So, if autovectorization and all the other improvements in GCC 4.0 make binaries massively faster on modern platforms, how long will it be before the major binary based distributions (like Ubuntu) start making i686 the default and i386 an available alternative (like AMD64 is now).
How we know is more important than what we know.
When they announced the release of Apple 10.4 "Tiger" I noticed this page: At that point I kinda figured gcc 4.0.0 had to be out by April 29th since Apple claimed they were using it for OS X.
Just about every time I have to rebuild a kernel or build a kernel mod I get my butt kicked by gcc versions. So my questions are?
Anyone know?
XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
The GCC team has been urged to drop support for SCO Unix from GCC, as a protest against SCO's irresponsible aggression against free software and GNU/Linux. We have decided to take no action at this time, as we no longer believe that SCO is a serious threat.
For more on the FSF's position regarding SCO's attacks on free software, please read:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/sco/sco.html
One of the changes in 4.0.0 is autovectorization optimizing.
One _ancient_ compiler (10+ years) I have to use, already has this feature -- and on a large scale: it'll do it over several screensful of code. What took GCC so long?
Unfortunately, this compiler I mention also has a bug: once it's factored out 'i' in a piece of code like that below, it then complains that 'i' is an unused variable. So you have to do something with 'i' to suppress that warning, which kinda defeats the purpose of the autovectorization.
Sample code:
int a[256], b[256], c[256];
foo () {
int i;
for (i=0; i256; i++){
a[i] = b[i] + c[i];
}
}
"All the ISVs who are still using C++ are building their apps with Core Foundation."
No they're not! And I myself am not about to port hundreds of thousands of lines of C++ code to Objective-C since that'd eliminate the Windows version, which I can't do!
In the code base I'm currently porting to Cocoa, all of the application's core logic and data structures are written in C++, and the user-interface layer is written natively for each platform. So the Mac version gets a high-quality Cocoa front-end and Windows/Linux/BSD gets a wxWidgets front-end (since wxWidgets does a good job on those platforms).
Take away Objective-C++ (and therefore Cocoa C++) support and I'll just compile the wxWidgets version for the Mac since CoreFoundation is, as you say, a pain in the ass to use. The result: another low-quality "Windows-app-in-Aqua-clothing" Mac app.
Cross-platform toolkits, such as wxWidgets, SWT and Swing produce usable but low-quality Mac applications (missing sheets, drawers, collapsable toolbars, AppleScript support, and so on and so forth). Objective-C++ allows me to easily write high quality Aqua-compliant applications easily. So if Apple values Mac users it will keep supporting Objective-C++!
Not to mention that, for me at least, Cocoa/C++ is one of the reasons I use a Mac in the first place. I can produce professional user interfaces in no time and still know that I can port the core logic to Windows/Linux/BSD.
Oh, and I'm working in the games industry, where the majority of code is C++. I know for a fact that Apple wants more games code ported to OS X.