Mark Mitchell announced the availability of GCC 4.0.2. He explains, "this release is a minor release, containing primarily fixes for regressions in GCC 4.0.1 relative to previous releases."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-08-19
Member since:2005-07-27
"So in summary it is able to compile a lot of source languages for a lot of target architectures, but it doesn't do any of them very well."
I guess Apple using GCC as the default compiler means a better compiler for Apple exists? XCode and tiger ship with GCC 4. So at least it is good enough for one vendor.
Member since:Get off your ass and donate your time to make it the "best of breed." Or if you are really talented, get hired by IBM or RedHat and work on GCC for C/C++.
Otherwise, proclaiming a compiler suite that targets a minimum of 7 languages versus a compiler targeting 2 is pointless.
Wanna take a guess at how butt slow Intel's compiler is for Objective-C?
Oh wait! It doesn't and will not support Objective-C. Guess Apple will have to do all the work on that one and give it back to GCC.
The Autovectorization will be nice along with several advancements to C and Objective-C at 4.1 and beyond. Get hired by Apple if you want to know more.
Member since:2005-07-08
"Get off your ass and donate your time to make it the "best of breed." Or if you are really talented, get hired by IBM or RedHat and work on GCC for C/C++."
At IBM we only use GCC in the Linux Technology Center. Everyone else uses Visual Age XLC for C/C++.
I work on a static analysis tool, which inherently needs to parse the code like a compiler. We worked really hard to tweak GCC to emulate XLC, but in the end we only got about 90% parse coverage. We dumped GCC for the EDG parser, which we were able to configure to get about 98% coverage. Of course, IBM owns Visual Age, but for some reason we can't integrate XLC into our static analysis tool.
The funny thing about IP lawyers is that they never get fired for saying no.
Member since:
2005-07-08
So C code compiled with GCC performs worse than C++ or C# compiled with Visual Studio, despite the overheads incurred by the latter languages. But at least it's faster than Java or Python!!
Look, without GCC, there would be no free software system as we know it today. My comment didn't deserve the "Hey, take that back!!" kind of response. GCC doesn't support basic optimization techniques aggressively implemented in just about every other C/C++ compiler, and it isn't a very good Java compiler either. It produces working code (in most cases), and beyond that it's absolutely mediocre.
I'm just saying there's a lot of work yet to be done.