Mark Mitchell recently announced the release of GCC 3.3.1, including “a very large number of bug-fixes relative to GCC 3.3”. Mark goes on to add, “The next release of GCC will be GCC 3.3.2, which will be a bug-fix release.”
GCC 3.3.1 Released
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Hopefully WINDOWS/DOS ports of GCC 3.3.x will finally show up. GCC is the only piece of OSS that is really useful for me.
I wish they’d get around to releasing a version that had Apple’s Objective-C++ patches applied, or at least let those of us who want it download the patches ourselves.
GCC has gotten phenomenally good at integer code these days. When writing low-level code, I periodically benchmark my algorithms with GCC and ICC. To my surprise, GCC has been faster (slightly, usually by no more than 10%) than ICC for almost every one. And this is on a P4! I don’t really do FP code these days, so I don’t know what kind of performance it has in that respect, but I’m very impressed with the integer performance. This is especially interesting given that GCC still doesn’t do any form of SSA or interprocedural analysis! There are two GCC-related things to look out for in the future. First, the tree-ssa branch is implementing SSA-based optimizations in GCC. Second, and more interesting, the LLVM project is replacing GCC’s middle and back layers with some very impressive compiler technology. They’ve done some incredible work on static optimizations that reach into actually doing data-structure optimizations like compressing pointers and doing automatic pool allocation. You can find out more at llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
Doesn’t Apple use Objective-C … not Objective-C++?
Objective-C
http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Cocoa/Conceptual/Objective…
Objective-C++
http://applestudentdevelopers.org/tutorials/Objective_CPlusPlus/ind…
Apple uses Objective-C, yes. Gcc supports Objective-C since years. And Apple is currently providing patches to gcc.
But Objective-C++ is another beast; it’s a hack to use in a same file Objective-C code and C++ code. From a design point of view, it’s an abomination 😉 as both languages proposes different philosophy of OOP. But from a practical pov, it’s quite useful to let an Objective-C program use some C++ as backend (or a C++ lib).
And thanks, that exactly the way Objective-C++ is used. For example, that’s how Apple was able to simply uses KHTML and embed it in WebCore.
The problem is that Objective-C++ isn’t available in gcc (as it involves some modifications to the Objective-C runtime, among others things). Though, Apple’s engineers (Stan Shebs, etc.) plan to include it in gcc soon — hopefully for the gcc 3.4 release.
If I understand correctly, GCC is free. Does this mean that any pimply faced 14 year old can write a program and inject it into my computer? The fact that Visual Studio .net costs money creates a barrier of entry thus only professionals do it, however a GCC usable by any hacker or terrorist is very worrying. I hope SCO goes after GCC when they’re done with Linux, there is no way those communists could’ve written this complex compiler without stealing code from others, probably MS since they have the most advanced IDE out there (MS Visual Studio .net, and it runs on Windows XP, the best OS, in case you didn’t know)
dose Objectiv-C++ exist? i thought Objective-C (without ++) is an alternative way to add OO to C… ?
I hope it doesn’t break (c++ ..) compatibility once again?
>> The fact that Visual Studio .net costs money creates a barrier
First, there’s a free cli version on MS’ site.
Secondly, there’s a ‘free’ version of the complete version including the IDE at xxx.xxxxxx.xxx (censured of course)
And now I notice your name I don’t get why I’m actually writing a reply to your message as I’ve only seen you writing fud and flames.
@Nicolas Roard
very interesting (I was to slow with my question).
@sun
nice joke
Hopefully WINDOWS/DOS ports of GCC 3.3.x will finally show up. GCC is the only piece of OSS that is really useful for me.
Try http://www.cygwin.com for your gcc needs. I’ve been pretty happy with it.
cygwin’s gcc is still 3.2!!
Yea, it usually takes a little longer to get stuff for cygwin because of its special nature. You could always try to compile 3.3.1 by yourself 🙂
LLVM is not replacing the middle end. It’s a research project and will probably never be integrated. The rest of your post reads like some disgusting fan-boy bullshit. gag.
I have my doubts about the Objective-C++ idea. Mixed language mode programming is always confusing. Just think of all the mixed-mode script/html languages. I’d rather see some kind of proxy generator (kind of like an IDL compiler) that would allow objc and c++ objects to interact directly with the other’s objects. Or maybe the gcc-objc front end can be fixed up to use the gcc-c++ internal object system.
“If I understand correctly, GCC is free. Does this mean that any pimply faced 14 year old can write a program and inject it into my computer?”
Amusing.
This will probably get modded down, but I would really like to know…
When people write trolls, do you spend time over it, crafting it to annoy? Or is it just a minutes typing for your own amusement?
Or is it a real misunderstanding of the technical issues involved? I would love to know. TIA.
If that person really believes any of what he posted, most likely he happened upon a computer that was already running, connected to the internet, and logged into OSNews ready to post….
I’m surprised that gcc doesn’t use SSA at all right now. I’m currently working on implementing SSA based optimizations for an erlang compiler! It only simplifies things of course, so I guess it’s not strictly necessary if you have stuff that works already.
Amusing.
This will probably get modded down, but I would really like to know…
When people write trolls, do you spend time over it, crafting it to annoy? Or is it just a minutes typing for your own amusement?
Or is it a real misunderstanding of the technical issues involved? I would love to know. TIA.
I agree. It has been years since we had a quality troll here. All we have now are pc fanboys and anti-linux quarter-wits making statements that aren’t even humorous and if they are, they’re a cut and paste from another person.
Please, if anyone is reading this and is thinking about trolling, put some effort into it. Be creative, use sarcasm, stretch the truth a little, have a slight bit of truth but don’t go overboard.
Nice troll. Semi-original.
Watch people bite…
…but I feel like verbally and intellectually b**ch-slapping this one.
First off, that “Pimply-faced 14 year old” probably has little if any real programming knowledge, so a compiler does him little good in that area. Second, even if he does have that knowledge, how is he going to “Inject” anything into your computer? If you’re stupid enough to allow parties unknown free access to your system, and take no real security precautions, you deserve whatever happens to you. I’ve no sympathy for you.
Feel free to mod this, and all other responses to this particular troll, right the heck down. I’ll take no offence; I just felt the need to respond.
I just had a look at the changelog for GCC 3.3.1 and it appears that there is a new, more efficient scheduler which, from what I heave heard, speeds things up on PowerPC based machines. Has anyone given used it yet?
If the rumour of about the scheduler being better now, would that explain why MacOS 10.3 is noticably faster than previous versions?
I said “the llvm project is replacing GCC’s middle and back ends.” As in they are replacing those parts of the code as part of the work in their project. I did not say that “GCC’s middle and back ends are being replaced by LLVM” which means a different thing. The only thing really standing in the way of LLVM getting integrated is that its written in C++, which might be a deal-breaker. However, if it shows performance improvements, it might very well be a popular fork, like egcs or pgcc was for a long time. Also, remember that a lot of OSS projects have academic roots, especially in the language/compiler arena. Some of the best alternative language compilers (like CMUCL) came out of academic research projects.
As for the fanboy stuff, guilty as charged. Its hard not to get excited about a compiler that is:
1) As standard’s conformant as VS.NET 2003 and Intel C++ 7.1. In total, I’ve been bitten by zero GCC conformance bugs, 1 ICC 7.1 conformance bug (actually, a case where ICC allowed non-conformant code to compile) and one VS.NET 2003 conformance bug (combination of Boost.Threads and Boost.Function).
2) That generates excellent code:
– 7% slower in Stepanov benchmark.
– 16% faster for a generic method dispatch algorithm I wrote.
– 25% faster for a memory allocator I wrote.
(I’ll email whoever is interested the code for the last two).
In particular, Intel C++ seems optimized to handle high-bandwidth, streaming style code while GCC seems to better handle branch-heavy complex algorithms.
3) That’s portable and widely supported. I can use GCC on everything from my Linux and Windows development machines to PPC and ARM embedded systems.
4) Has source code available. You might not need it, but it came in damn handy when I was figuring out how to make my C++ code freestanding so I could use it in a kernel.
5) Costs $0, compared to $300 for a properly optimizing copy of Visual C++ (Standard Edition doesn’t optimize well) or $400 for a commercial copy of Intel C++.
So yes, I’m a GCC-fanboy. I was, at one time, also a BeOS fanboy. I see absolutely nothing wrong with being a cheerleader for a good thing.
Well, considering these two:
1) Most virus’s are written in VB for the Windows platform and generally, they’re unskilled losers who couldn’t code their way out of a paper bag even if 1/2 the source code was given to them.
2) The Microsoft C/C++ compiler are free of charge with the Windows SDK.
Thus making the trolls points completely invalid.
Argh, I’m sick of reading haughty responses to “trolls” from the high-strung, devoid of any humour whatsoever. Is that not what characterizes us as geeks and nerds: Our sarcastic, bitter senses of humour?
Argh, I’m sick of reading haughty responses to “trolls” from the high-strung, devoid of any humour whatsoever. Is that not what characterizes us as geeks and nerds: Our sarcastic, bitter senses of humour?
The problem is that OSNews trolls are so bad they got kicked off Slashdot. A troll should be annoying to those who bite and funny to those who can see that it’s a troll. When they have bad facts, they aren’t easily refutable, which is why many trolls use religion (incl. atheism).
The one posted earlier in this thread basically sucked. It was written in five minutes or less, with no research and no concern. Those who can see that it’s a troll didn’t find it funny—we found it stupid.
If I want trolls, I go to https://www.Kuro5hin.org (and I do, and I go to Kuro5hin for non-troll reasons, too).
The problem is that OSNews trolls are so bad they got kicked off Slashdot.
Ignoring the fact that some folks’ definition of a troll is very subjective, have you ever read Slashdot at -1? Slashdot’s trolls are much worse than anything posted here. I mean, surely a rude, stupid, or not-very-well thought out opinion beats goatse links and incest stories, right?
And why i think that you are from USA ….
Fuck you bitch.
You know what would be really awesome? If GCC 3.3.3 included some bug fixes. I wonder what Mark would say about that!
He sounds like a pretty cool guy.
-Jeremy
//I hope SCO goes after GCC when they’re done with Linux, there is no way those communists could’ve written this complex compiler without stealing code from others, probably MS since they have the most advanced IDE out there (MS Visual Studio .net, and it runs on Windows XP, the best OS, in case you didn’t know)//
This statement made me laugh. It was an obvious troll (aren’t they all these days?) because GCC was first released in 1987, long before .net and long before WinXP. Besides that, I like some of the IDEs for Linux but I don’t mind coding in a text editor in the console either.
I have been writing some apartment complex software in c++. I’m quite happy with using gcc under Linux for development. Unfortunatly, my employer also wants a Win32 build. I started adjusting sections of the code to compile with VisualC++ but, to me, working under Windows is like pulling finger nails out. Any one know of any tricks to compile a Win32 executable under Linux? I’m thinking about using cygwin but as far as I know you still have to spend time in Windows. I have read an artical about compiling VisualC++ programs under Linux using Microsoft’s compiler with wine but I keep getting linking problems. I also tryed borland’s free compiler with the same problems. In summary, I would really like to compile Win32 executables with out leaving Linux. Any suggestions out there?
GCC 3.3 mingw dist:
http://stl.caltech.edu/gcc.shtml#mingw
I see there’s an “offcial” 3.3.1 candidate at http://www.mingw.org/download.shtml now, so no need to go with STLs port above really.
I’ve got a similar problem. For work, our software needs to run both on Windows and Linux, but I do my development on a Linux machine. My Windows skills have deteriorated greatly, so I have a lot of trouble doing the Windows builds. However, there is hope:
If you’re software doesn’t depend on linking to any Windows-only libraries, and you can use GCC for the software, you can set up GCC as a cross compiler to build a Windows target on the Linux machine. Just google for “GCC cross compiler Linux Windows.” This link: http://www.wxwindows.org/technote/crosscmp.htm is particularly useful.
The creator of LLVM does not expect it to be integrated. There is nothing wrong with being a cheerleader, just so long as you don’t provide a distorted point of view, which you’ve done.
>I hope SCO goes after GCC when they’re done with Linux,
-Seems they’ve other problems to worry about (IBM for instance…)
>there is no way those communists could’ve written this complex compiler without >stealing code from others
-Think they call that collaboration…
>Windows XP, the best OS, in case you didn’t know
-Especially when it comes to internet virusses…
Hey guys,
See instructions for have a cross compiler for WIN32:
http://www.libsdl.org/extras/win32/cross/README.txt
http://jrfonseca.dyndns.org/projects/gnu-win32/documentation/cross/
http://www.nanotech.wisc.edu/~khan/software/gnu-win32/mingw-cross-h…
And send your M$ Visual C++ bloatware to trash !!
For people who have been following it, the GCC vs. ICC fight is not quite as open and shut as some would like it to seem. Like one of the “GCC fanboy” posters said, GCC actually beats ICC at quite a few things. Someone did a comparison, and it was a fairly even spread when it came to benchmarks.
-Erwos
> I would really like to compile Win32 executables with out leaving Linux.
“apt-get install mingw” works very well if you have a debian
I can’t believe you didn’t notice the second degree and the ironie in this post……….
I just can’t believe that…..
3.3.1 binaries are available for mingw at
http://sf.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=2435
Read the release notes before downloading.
Danny