GCC 3.0.4 is Out 54
Isle writes: "GCC 3.0.4 has finally been released.
As those who has tried the prereleases will know this version finally compiles a working version of aRts and thus compiles the entire KDE-suite. With the Linux kernel compiling already with the 3.0.3 version, gcc 3.0 now compiles all major projects I know of.
Is it finally time to dump that good old 2.95?"
C++ too slow (Score:2, Interesting)
When will they implement precompiled headers.
Oh why, why. why havnt they done it already!
Or should i just give up Qt and move to GTK+?
Re:C++ too slow (Score:3, Insightful)
A more interesting question seems to be: Do the binaries run faster? Some people happen to run their apps more often than they compile them...
Re:C++ too slow, really! (Score:2, Interesting)
I still believe that there is a limit of what compilation speed it acceptable. Have you compared different compilers? Yes, running speed is important too, but not at any price.
I find myself developing the software under Visual Studio and make sure that the program compiles and works there before moving to Linux and compiling the code. Id prefer to develop the stuff under Linux completly, but the time between typing make and having a binary just takes too darn long.
Sure i can have a cup of coffee during the compilations, but that sums upp to an awful lot of coffee...
By the way:
NUMBER_OF_USERS * BINARY_RUNNING_TIME_GAIN - NUMBER_OF_DEVELOPERS * NUMBER_OF_COMPILES * COMPILATION_SPEED_GAIN = A_NUMBER_THAT_I_DONT_CARE_ABOUT_IF_IT_IS_POSITIVE
Re:C++ too slow (Score:1)
Re:C++ too slow (Score:3, Insightful)
Why do you want precompiled headers? Sure you might get a couple of faster compiles... when you're not scratching your head trying to figure out why PCH is failing.
GCC adding this feature would only cause me to spend more time compiling programs than I already do... unless they come up with a smarter implementation than MSVC.
Been there, done that (Score:5, Insightful)
That's because C++ got bigger since the old one.
A precompiled headers branch was created some time ago. Feel free to try using it. It's been implemented by two different commercial groups already; they're just merging in one of those solutions.
Perhaps you think implementing precompiled headers is easy? I invite you to try.
If are are dissatisfied with the compiler, and unwilling to contribute your own time to make it better, you should definitely demand a refund of the money you paid for it.
Info propaganda (Score:3, Funny)
What's next, the Emacs scratch buffer explaining why Free Software is better than Open Source? ls(1) warning about Non-GNU licensed binaries?
Re:Info (Score:5, Funny)
It's a pita to use/write/index
man forever!
Re:Info (Score:3, Informative)
like this:
info --subnodes bison | more
Re:Info (Score:1)
Re:Info (Score:1)
Re:Info propaganda (Score:2)
Also, I agree that Free Software is a better concept than Open Source, although the GNU approach isn't mine - for instance, they completely miss the freedom of the people writing the software and focus on the users only. However, there are better places to discuss such stuff than a compiler manual - the philosophy pages at GNU.org come to mind (and /. of course ;).
I respect the GNU approach, and wouldn't know any reason why they shouldn't point it out. But they developed an annoying practice of shouting pointless rants on quite unimportant details at inappropriate places. I'm sure most people reading the GCC manual know a bit about GNU, and if they care, about the GNU/Linux|Linux thingie. Can't we just get along and write code?
Re:Info propaganda (Score:1)
Your comment about "the freedom of people writing the software" versus the users is completely off base. It's like a slavery appologist saying the Emancipation Proclamation focused too much on the freedom of laborers and not enough on property rights. The only "freedom" being denied writers under that system is the "freedom" to control other writers. By choosing to write software under a FreeBSD style license, you are leaving a greater range of actions open to yourself -- and that includes actions which completely prevent other people from becoming writers.
I think someone who writes code under the BSD license and justified by your arguments would be using sophistry to hide the fact that the tools they create may be used be Microsoft to control and restrict information to the point that other people cannot even do what they did.
Think back to the first time you used BSD, and all the delightful learning experiences you no doubt had along the way. The sense of freedom that can come from finding out how to do something that seemed mysterious and hard, and learning that it is actually simple and you can do it ! Don't you want future generations of programmers to be able to have the same experiences ? Then you should not support the creation of code and tools under anything but the GNU license.
The GPL has a fair symmetry to it, a kind of resonance with the rule Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. The BSD license creates a system which has the potential to incredibly and unfairly asymetric, making a system where only a small class of people get to write code, and the rest of us just get to pay. This is not a humourous plot from the Illuminati trilogy; real people, powerful people, are working to create that system today.
The propaganda that suffuses the GNU documentation is necessary to make sure we can do what we want with our computers. Otherwise the computer revolution will be hijacked by people who want to create a kind of modern feudalism. I wouldn't want the GNU rants to disappear any more than I would want policemen to stop using the Miranda warnings, or schools to stop teaching the Declaration of Independence. There are societies in the world which have neglected discussion and focus on freedom for the practical content and how to make money; and China is not the kind of society I want to live in.
Re:Info propaganda (Score:2)
I didn't intend to start a license flamewar. I didn't even mention the BSD license, and I didn't say anything about rights being denied writers - I just claim that the "freedom is a licensing issue" approach (regardless of which license, GPL od BSD or Apache etc) overlook the writers freedom.
I talk about a stylistic issue - even when your point is valid, you shouldn't annoy people. Insisting on silly details where totally inappropriate (and the insisting on GNU/Linux in the GCC manual is as appropriate as posting command-line parameters on the /. front-page) will do the Free Software community no good. That is my point, nothing else.
Oh, and if you would care to explain how exactly the BSD license leads to feudalism...
Re:Info propaganda (Score:1)
I'm saying this annoying insertion of philosophy into everything is annoying for me too, but it is also why I trust the FSF, and why I am willing to give them money.
And the BSD license and feudalism thing . . . I almost removed that line from my post when preveiwing because I was sure someone would mod me "flamebait" just for having those to words in a post. But I'll explain. The BSD license or software community doesn't promote feudalism or any other particular political system.
What they do do is trade with an enemy who does. BSD code can potentially be used by people who wish to create a caste-style society, where your access to the immense resources of the computer revolution is regulated and metered.
If Microsoft and the other proprietary software people were not so powerful, I wouldn't care. But when they represent a clear threat to my way of life, I tend to veiw with suspicion anyone who helps them in any way, no matter how small and inconsequential. Continuing my string of (very imperfect and possibly confusing
Hopefully, five or ten years from now, the level of the average consumer's computer education will have risen to the point where large numbers of people can switch to linux if necessary, consumer awareness will have increased to the point where Microsoft's business tactics (and the many who would emumlate them) result in big consumer backlashes, and Microsoft is once again competeing on the merits of their products and focusing on re-earning trust. Then the GNU movement will become less important. Chapters on philosophy in compiler documentation will seem as odd as the Cold War anti-communist propaganda seems today, and they will disappear.
Re:Info propaganda (Score:1)
Your analogy falls apart. The bankroller of the American Revolution was John Hancock (who was all set to be the first president... he was promised the job for getting Massachusetts to ratify the Constitution). He was also the biggest trader with the British before, during, and after the war.
The inescapable fact is that the GPL is the less free of the two licenses. The definition of freedom is (according to m-w.com): the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action. BSD license: no restrictions on user; no restrictions on programmer. GPL: no restrictions on user; some restrictions on programmer. The GPL has more restrictions. Ergo it is less free than the BSD license. The GPL is free in the same sense that the old DDR (that is the Deutsche Demokratische Republik) was a Democratic Republic.
With all that said, I use the GPL for my work! The BSD license is the utopian license. In a perfect world, the only license would be the BSD license and Stallman would have shut up long ago. But the world isn't perfect. The GPL may be a step towards the BSD license. Maybe thirty years from now, we'll look back and laugh at our use of the GPL, before we used the BSD license for everything.
Re:Info propaganda (Score:1)
The question of why it is in there is an entirely different matter of inquiry.
Re:Info propaganda (Score:1)
I'm just saying that seeing the out-of-place GNU propaganda in the gcc info manual makes me feel good, it doesn't bother me at all. I'm also suggesting that given the various attempts on our freedom which are being made, others might re-consider their discomfort with it, and decide to be GNU fanatics too.
There are some things which you SHOULD be single minded and obsessive about.
Re:Info propaganda (Score:1)
We tried removing it once... (Score:3, Informative)
...but RMS won't let us.
There are days when I dream about another GCC fork.
glibc 2.2.5 (Score:3, Informative)
KDE speedup ? (Score:4, Informative)
- optimizations in the dynamic linker. binaries created by recent binutils versions start up quicker due to reduced time spend on relocations.
If I am reading this correctly, this is the much talked-about fix for the long startup times of KDE programs.Yay
Re:KDE speedup ? (Score:1)
Does anyone know (Score:2, Interesting)
Not just the intel backen, but all the other popular ones (Sparc, PPC, etc.)
The only document I saw, is the BOOST library compile logs [boost.org] [note, boost.org is down at the moment, try a google cache.]
I know GCC beats the pants out of VisualC++ interms
of standard compliance, but how much better is it?
--
Re:Does anyone know (Score:2, Informative)
Later versions of VS C have been getting more standards compliant for these core features. Check the documentation as VS C defaults to maintining backward compatibility (like K&R block variable scoping) over standards compliance in some respects. GCC has a few of the lesser used features that VS C does not. It shouldn't matter what backend you're compiling towards for supporting these features in GCC. VS C still does not do good templates although nobody does even great templates.
However, GCC thought it would be wonderful to add new features to C++ and so there are a bunch of programs locked into using GCC because they use GCC proprietary extensions. In that sense, I'd say GCC is much less standards compliant than VS C. If you are careful about avoiding the GCC extensions (or just disable them
By the way, you shouldn't try and use things like BOOST as a metric. As they say on their page:
"Warning: These tables are not a good indication of a particular compiler's compliance with the C++ Standard."
It's because a lot of code has either platform workarounds that hide bugs or proprietary extensions (like GCC's) that cause bugs on certain compilers.
Re:Does anyone know (Score:1, Interesting)
VC++ 6 choked in Chapter 1 of that book. MS claims the new version will compile it, though.
Re:Does anyone know (Score:1)
The major improvement over the 2.95.x series (IMHO) are in the STL library thats been included in 3.0.x.
Re:GCC 3.1 on scheduel? (Score:1)
That is really something worthwhile to wait for!
Bigger News (Score:1)
Re:No "legal" closed-source C++ programs for Linux (Score:2, Informative)
// As a special exception, you may use this file as part of a free software
// library without restriction. Specifically, if other files instantiate
// templates or use macros or inline functions from this file, or you compile
// this file and link it with other files to produce an executable, this
// file does not by itself cause the resulting executable to be covered by
// the GNU General Public License. This exception does not however
// invalidate any other reasons why the executable file might be covered by
// the GNU General Public License.
So you can use any license for C++ programs.
Re:No "legal" closed-source C++ programs for Linux (Score:1)
Re:No "legal" closed-source C++ programs for Linux (Score:1)