Slashdot Mirror
GCC-2.95 in July
Bananenrepublik writes "On this page, the EGCS steering committee has posted the official schedule for the transition from egcs to gcc-2.95. So expect gcc-2.95 in early July. " It looks pretty aggressive. I wish the team luck, and eagerly await the improved compiler.
OK, more detail is in order. Using a bunch of libraries, but only bits and pieces from each gcc yields are large static binary. If I cut and paste the bits and just link in those the binary is much smaller. If I use shared libraries the binary is much smaller, but after the dynamic link at run time it is just as big in memory.
In the M$ case there is no significant increase in size with the non cut and paste version. The linker seems to only grab what it needs.
I use -O and strip afterwards for these tests.
Dont misunderstand...I use dynamic libraries usually, but certain customers prefer static binaries and are concerned with the size. Also, I push UNIX (although not always Linux, SMP isnt there yet compared to IRIX and Solaris) over Win32, but again some customers are just mired in their Win32edness.
The current EGCS snapshots have some support for the new C standard ( C9X) . But well... it is just a beginning and a lot of basic C9X features are missing (the Glibc2.1 misses many C9X functions, too, especially with wide chars concerns) . I hope GCC 2.95 will finally have all the features of the final comitee draft. As that standard will soon officially replace the current C language definition, GCC have to follow it. Having a decent C9X compiler on Linux is the best way of learning properly the new C language revision.
(1) If there is something called "Cygnus Inc" it has nothing to do with Gcc. The name you are looking for is "Cygnus Solutions". If you want to be informal, you can say "Cygnus" - but don't add "Inc"; if you add "Inc", get the name right. (While "Cygnus Solutions" is looking for a new company name, I don't think one has been chosen yet.)
(2) Cygnus is *not* the maintainer of Gcc. The maintainer of Gcc is the Egcs steering committee. The steering committee contains individuals, but no companies are members. Some of the steering committee members are Cygnus employees, including the technical manager (I forget his official title), Jeff Law. Other members belong to other organizations.
While this is not an official statement, I am a member of the Egcs steering committee, and (until next Wednesday) a Cygnus employee.
I believe it is important to clear up a few issues
that have come up on this thread:
1. It's Cygnus Solutions, not Cygnus Inc. At
least until our name is changed.
2. Cygnus contributes to egcs, but does not
control egcs. egcs is controlled by the
egcs steering committee which includes
people from a variety of different backgrounds.
http://egcs.cygnus.com/steering.html
It is important to realize that while Cygnus
does have representation on the egcs steering
committee, it does not have a majority on the
egcs steering committee.
3. The egcs project was already in the process of
putting a release together. It was originally
to be called egcs-1.2. However with the
egcs/fsf merger we decided to rename the
release gcc-2.95. So July may not be as
aggressive as one might think.
4. The development model of egcs is not changing.
Some changes will be necessary as part of the
egcs/fsf merger, but the basic development
model used by egcs will not be changing.
Jeff Law
Cygnus Solutions
egcs project
As someone else pointed out already, try running strip on the binary, or compile with -s which does the same thing.
Also, I think that a lot of Windows code is shared DLL's no matter how you link it, so there might be an apples to oranges comparison here depending on what type of application you're building.
I was wondering if someone could clarify a few points for me about PGCC, EGCS soon to be GCC-2.9.....
1) What is the connection between PGCC and EGCS. I know that PGCC is based on the EGCS code and that the improvements from PGCC are rolled back into the EGCS code base, but how do the two compare on producing optimized code for Pentium/PentiumII machines. Does PGCC have code that doesn't go back into EGCS or does, for example, EGCS 1.1.2 have all the improvements from PGCC 1.1.1 in it?
2) Has anybody done any basic benchmarking of the two ??
If anybody has any answers... then please enlighten me
P.S Yes, i know this isn't a mailing list or bulletin board, and the questions are slightly off topic, but please indulge me !!!
Iggy
EGCS put gcc on speed :-)
As far as I've read, the development will continue in much the same way as has been done with egcs.