Slashdot Mirror
GCC 4.9 Coming With Big New Features
jones_supa writes "When GCC 4.9 is released in 2014 it will be coming in hot on new features with a large assortment of improvements and new functionality for the open-source compiler. Phoronix provides a recap of some of the really great features of this next major compiler release from the Free Software Foundation. For a quick list: OpenMP 4.0, Intel Cilk Plus multi-threading support, Intel Bay Trail and Silvermont support, NDS32 port, Undefined Behavior Sanitizer, Address Sanitizer, ADA and Fortran updates, improved C11 / C++11 / C++14, better x86 intrinsics, refined diagnostics output. Bubbling under are still: Bulldozer 4 / Excavator support, OpenACC, JIT compiler, disabling Java by default."
"Ada" is the name of a person, and the language.
"ADA" is the Americans with Disabilities Act, or the American Dental Association.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
For God's sake, that's *THIRTEEN* (13) links to Phoronix!
Pointing to a couple of ML threads or to the 4.9 changelog would've been more than enough. http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.9/changes.html
You only don't care about sanitizing standard-undefined behavior if you don't care about bugs.
That one's a Really, Really Big Deal.
But then how would Googlebot know that Phoronix is really great and popular and they should rank it higher in searches?
Superior backend, coming up to par with Clang on the frontend, what's not to love?
Frankly, the BSD licenses appear to be a failure psychologically. The proponents of BSD-licensed software go apeshit when GPL-licensed software reuses their code, but are ok if the stuff disappears in proprietary forks.
You can see this, for example, with LibreOffice/OpenOffice: every LibreOffice release announcement draws ire from the OpenOffice crowd (well, particularly one OpenOffice developer) because the latter feels their code has been ripped off.
There has been a lot of that going on with OpenBSD and FreeBSD as well, but it's grown a bit more quiet in recent years.
Now we have the same with Clang/GCC.
If you don't want to have your code relicensed under different licenses, use a Copyleft license. If you want to have your code relicensed under different licenses, stop complaining when somebody actually does exactly that.
Wait, what, Clang now supports other languages than C-derivatives, like Ada and Fortran?
"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
I see from the status page the Regex support is still not complete, part of the C++11 standard. It would be nice if support for this standard could be completed before starting on C++14.
No, it is not. But GCJ Java-to-native compiling didn't result in particularly fast Java code. That's one of the major reasons developers and enterprises ignored GCJ in the first place.
I assume you can list all the undefined behaviors in the C standard off the top of your head, yes? And you've never actually written a line of code with an error in it, right?
I've spent a lot of time cleaning up after security bugs written by people with that attitude. None of them could make mistakes either. Maybe you guys should form a club, so the rest of us can identify the special beings walking among us.
finally
C++0x does not have "finally".
You'll have to implement it yourself, e.g. using a destructor.
See for example: http://codereview.stackexchange.com/questions/2864/an-implementation-of-finally-in-c0x
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
The 2-clause BSD license (which is the one used nowadays) is 7 lines of natural English (excluding the disclaimer) and people still can't understand it...
You can't take BSD code and change it's license.
It's ironic that you're laughing at those who misunderstand the licence, given that you've fundamentally midunderstood the licence.
If your interpretation were correct, it would be functionally comparable to the GPL, and we wouldn't have all those flame-wars.
It's a 'copycenter' licence, not a copyleft licence. You're allowed to release your fork under your choice of licence, whether proprietary, Free/Open Source, or anywhere in between, provided you don't hide the fact that your software is based upon that original BSD 2-clause licensed software.
It's a little confusing, as "must retain the above copyright notice" can easily be misinterpreted the way you did, to mean "you must release your fork under the BSD 2-clause licence".
Relevant Wikipedia content.
Clang has really become a boon to open source compiler development. Unlike the open source *BSD operating systems, which are too far behind the GPL operating systems in many measures (not all), Clang has really electrified the compiler scene.
I see nothing but good things coming from this in near future.
And in such a rapidly evolving area as compiler development, having a *BSD license does not really hurt either. It's not like the *compiler* is likely to get put into some device with proprietary modifications.