Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 7th Oct 2010 19:10 UTC, submitted by tyrione
General Development LLVM 2.8 has been released. The release notes describe this new, ehm, release in greater detail, so head on over and give it a read.
Thread beginning with comment 444475
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comment by kaiwai
by Neolander on Fri 8th Oct 2010 05:20 UTC in reply to "Comment by kaiwai"
Neolander
Member since:
2010-03-08

with many of the GNU/GCC'isms finally removed from open source code and replaced with open standards code that allow it to be compiled with any compiler.

Problem is, the C++ standard lacks some very useful things like the __attribute__ ((packed)) of GCC, which prove to be mandatory under certain circumstances. And a stdint header like that of C99, too, I'm tired of defining uintX_t myself in a compiler-specific fashion.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai
by kaiwai on Fri 8th Oct 2010 06:59 in reply to "RE: Comment by kaiwai"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Problem is, the C++ standard lacks some very useful things like the __attribute__ ((packed)) of GCC, which prove to be mandatory under certain circumstances. And a stdint header like that of C99, too, I'm tired of defining uintX_t myself in a compiler-specific fashion.


I know it is a pain in the rear that the standard lacks some niceties but I'd sooner that people wrote code according to the standard, even if it means they have to write an extra 1000 lines of code simply for the sake of being able to pick up any compiler and it all works nicely because the programmer chose to stick to the straight and narrow.

How was it done before these features appeared? they wrote it out the long way - time to go back to the good old days instead of looking for quick and dirty short cuts that create giant clusterfucks when it comes to code portability.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by kaiwai
by Neolander on Fri 8th Oct 2010 12:41 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

I know it is a pain in the rear that the standard lacks some niceties but I'd sooner that people wrote code according to the standard, even if it means they have to write an extra 1000 lines of code simply for the sake of being able to pick up any compiler and it all works nicely because the programmer chose to stick to the straight and narrow.

How was it done before these features appeared? they wrote it out the long way - time to go back to the good old days instead of looking for quick and dirty short cuts that create giant clusterfucks when it comes to code portability.

It's not a matter of number of LOC, you just can't define a packed structure in vanilla C++. Nor know the size of the integers you're using (which is quite idiotic for anything except but int which is supposed to handle the machine's faster integer type, if you ask me).

When people did not have compiler extensions, they used either known compiler-specific behavior (like my typedef long int64_t), gigantic macros that are horrible to debug, or assembly code which has the worst possible portability. Generally a combination of all three. I don't see what's wrong with using compiler extensions, compared to this mess...

Reply Parent Score: 2