Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
GNU is Not Unix

GCC 3.1 Released 56

Posted by michael from the it-slices-it-dices dept.
gergnz writes "Just popped into my inbox, GCC 3.1 released. There are many bug fixes over 3.0. "we focused more on quality than new features" Mark Michell. Here are the changes, and you can see a list of ftp servers here. This is the release I have been waiting for. I will now upgrade :-) Well Done to all involved!"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

GCC 3.1 Released More

GCC 3.1 Released

Comments Filter:

  • 3.1? (Score:4, Funny)

    by ObviousGuy ( 578567 ) <ObviousGuy@hotmail.com> on Wednesday May 15, 2002 @10:58PM (#3527567) Homepage Journal
    Windows was at that level 8 years ago! Even VC++ is up to 7.0 now. Sheesh! Faster development with fewer bugs, my ass.

    Seriously, though. Hopefully this takes care of all those niggling bugs that made 3.0 unusable. Maybe this will encourage everyone to jump from the 2.x tree finally.
    • They could just do what Patrick at Slackware did and jump three or so version numbers in a single release.
    • Seriously, though. Hopefully this takes care of all those niggling bugs that made 3.0 unusable. Maybe this will encourage everyone to jump from the 2.x tree finally.

      I think it has, and I think it will. There are a lot of very important bugfixes in this release, especially with respect to the C++ ABI. My bet is that this is going to be a distribution compiler.

    • Re:3.1? (Score:2)

      by jmv ( 93421 )
      I have a complex (it uses lots of features) C++ program which compiled fine (after a couple tweeks) under 2.95.x and 2.96 but would crash when compiled with 3.0.x. I used to think it was my fault but it now works again with 3.1 so I guess 3.0.x was badly broken...
      • It might be your fault, and it's just that neither 2.9x nor 3.1 shows up the bug. Or it might, as you say, have been a bug in 3.0.x. Without seeing the code, I can't say.

  • Most Notable Improvements (Score:4, Informative)

    by Sentry21 ( 8183 ) on Wednesday May 15, 2002 @11:39PM (#3527693) Journal

    Here's a short run-down of the improvements that really caught my eye this time around.

    • Better PPC support (64-bit PowerPC GNU/Linux support in the backend, and altivec support with -maltivec)
    • UltraSPARC 64 fully supported
    • AMD x86-64 [x86-64.org] support
    • SSE/SSE2/3DNow!/MMX instructions and command-line flags to enable. No C++ compatible intrics for SSE2
    • New ports for MMIX [stanford.edu], CRIS, and SuperH [superh.com]
    • Code profiling

    Everyone knows I'm no fan of the GNU project, but GCC3.1 shows that they have a lot going for them. Very exciting guys, I can't wait to see what 3.2 has in store.

    --Dan

  • When.. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by hackwrench ( 573697 )
    will it be available in Cygwin...

    • Re:When.. (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Try bulding it from sources.
  • Has anybody tried using it yet? I don't want to be the first kid on the block to give it a go...

  • Trouble (Score:3, Interesting)

    by 4of12 ( 97621 ) on Thursday May 16, 2002 @09:46AM (#3529386) Homepage Journal

    [Well, I won't dwell on my rejected submission for this.]

    But my attempt to build gcc 3.1 on sparc-sun-solaris2.8 gave me this problem:

    echo timestamp > s-check
    stage1/xgcc -Bstage1/
    -B/usr/local/sparc-sun-solaris2.8/bin/ -c
    -DIN_GCC -g -O2 -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings
    -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes -Wtraditional -pedantic
    -Wno-long-long -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -DGENERATOR_FILE -I. -I. -I../../gcc-3.1/gcc
    -I../../gcc-3.1/gcc/. -I../../gcc-3.1/gcc/config
    -I../../gcc-3.1/gcc/../include ../../gcc-3.1/gcc/p rint-rtl.c -o print-rtl.o
    In file included from
    ../../gcc-3.1/gcc/print-rtl.c:30:
    ../../gcc-3.1/gcc/tree.h:3183: stray '\273' in program
    ../../gcc-3.1/gcc/tree.h:3183: stray '\224' in program
    ../../gcc-3.1/gcc/tree.h:3183: stray '\315' in program
    ../../gcc-3.1/gcc/tree.h:3183: stray '\352' in program
    ../../gcc-3.1/gcc/tree.h:3183: stray '\274' in program
    ../../gcc-3.1/gcc/tree.h:3183: parse error before '&' token
    ../../gcc-3.1/gcc/tree.h:3183: stray '\246' in program
    ../../gcc-3.1/gcc/tree.h:3183: stray '\21' in program
    .
    .
    .
     [This went on for some while.]

    Any ideas?

    • Re:Trouble (Score:1, Informative)

      by morbid ( 4258 )
      Are you running on x86 or SPARC?
      I've built various versions of gcc-3.0.x and 3.1-xxxxx on SPARC and intel multiprocessor boxen on Solaris 8 and 9.
      What C compiler are you using to start the bootstrap build?

      I have the Freeware Companion CD installed, so am using gcc-2.95.3.

      Here is my configure line:

      ../gcc-3.1/configure --prefix=/area51/trial/install/gcc-3.1 --with-ld=/usr/ccs/bin/ld --with-as=/usr/ccs/bin/as --without-gnu-ld --without-gnu-as --enable-shared

      • This is SPARC (v9).

        Solaris 8.

        My first attempt failed, using gcc 3.0.4 to do the bootstrap build.

        My second attempt failed, using Suns WS 6u2.

        Thanks for the configure line. I'll also try extracting on a different filesystem as another poster suggested, since the symptoms look suspicious.

  • How is the C++ support now? I've been sticking with 2.95.x since 3.0 wasn't able to compile kde (i think it was the sound system it couldn't compile although I could be wrong). There was nothing wrong with the KDE code it was a problem with gcc3. So any word on whether c++ has been fixed? does the linker work properly or do we still have to use objprelink?

    I remember being optimistic about 3.0 only to be disapointed that it wouldn't compile kde.

    • Re:Does it compile KDE? (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Yes, some of the KDE developers are already using GCC 3.1. It compiles and runs KDE without problems.

    • Sigh (Score:2)

      by devphil ( 51341 )


      Yes, GCC 3.1 compiles KDE 3.0 just fine, according to initial prerelease reports. However...

      So any word on whether c++ has been fixed?

      "C++" as you call it, was doing pretty well. Most of the problem was that the KDE library folks expected to be able to break the ODR and have GNU ld magically fix it for them. (Even open source projects have to follow the rules of the programming language in use, sorry...)

    • How is the C++ support now? I've been sticking with 2.95.x since 3.0 wasn't able to compile kde (i think it was the sound system it couldn't compile although I could be wrong).

      I think you're very wrong -- I have compiled KDE3 from CVS with GCC3.0 many times without a problem.

  • I hope Apple has the insight to ship this version of GCC with Jaguar rather than the much maligned GCC 3.0.x
    • If you really want a solid gcc, 3.0.4 is probably your best bet right now. The 3.0.x line has had by far the most testing of any recent version. 3.1 seems pretty good, but many regressions have been fixed "at the last minute" and there are still some known and some unknown regressions. If you want the improved conformance and better optimizers etc. then 3.1 is a good bet. If it's just stable you're looking for, then 3.0.4 is sane, or maybe 3.1.x fairly soon.

  • Prelinking? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Is now prelinking possible (with current/next binutils/glibc)? Real prelinking, not objprelink or combreloc.
  • Does GCC 3.1 build the Linux kernel correctly now? I had problem with the GCC 3.0.x versions and some 2.4 kernel modules.

    • Does GCC 3.1 build the Linux kernel correctly now? I had problem with the GCC 3.0.x versions and some 2.4 kernel modules.

      Which modules? I've been compiling 2.4.18 with ipsec and the bleeding edge ACPI stuff for quite a while now. Nothing weird yet...

  • 8-bit register use on x86 ? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Can code generated by this version of GCC use, say, registers AH and AL at the same time? I don't think GCC 2.x can do this.

Slashdot Top Deals

The biggest difference between time and space is that you can't reuse time. -- Merrick Furst

Close