Branches
Articles referencing this project
Comments
[»]
Statement about providing source code checking is a truth with modifications
by sigra - Jan 26th 2008 05:34:33
>GCC provides many levels of source code error
checking traditionally provided by other tools (such as
lint)
This is unfortunately a truth with modifications. It may be
true for some frontends, such as Ada, but definitely not
for C/C++.
The Ada frontend (GNAT) is very helpful. If an identifier is
typed wrong, GNAT suggests the correct name. If a
variable is not modified, GNAT can suggest declaring it as
a constant. (This feature has helped me catch some
errors that would have taken me significantly longer time
to find the hard way, for example when I intended to
modify a variable and then forgot to write the statement
to do it.) If one forgets a semicolon, GNAT says
missing ';'. (If you ever tried to use g++ you sure know
that it usually spews out 20 pages of obscure error
messages in this case.) GNAT reports the location of
errors with both line number and column number (g++
only reports line number). GNAT can even warn about
style errors, such as wrong indentation, padding or
overlong lines.
But GCC does not intend to be that helpful for C++
developers. If a wish for such a feature is requested, it is
usually rejected within half an hour or so. This is the case
for warning
about variables that could be declared constant.
The motivation was: "Isn't this a task for lint-like tool?
GCC isn't such thing." (Note how that statement directly
contradicts what the freshmeat summary says?)
The whole Ada language is designed to catch errors as
early as possible. Preferably at compile time. If that is not
possible, they should be caught as early as possible at
runtime. A common error is to dereference null pointers.
C++ is not designed for correctness but I still believe
that some things can be done to remedy the situation,
like optionally warning about dereferencing pointers
without checking for null. But that feature
request went
the same way.
So maybe the GCC develpers think that just because
someone chose to develop in C/C++ they couldn't care
less about code correctness. That may be true of course,
but they forgot that not all who do so actually chose it.
They might have to work on existing code written in a
language chosen by someone else.
Maybe the GCC develoers just want to keep a huge
advantage of Ada over C/C++ by not even allowing
people register wishes for code checking features in the
C/C++ frontends? But I plead them to reconsider this.
And I can assure them that even if a few little helpful
checks are added to C/C++, it will not become Ada.
There will still be a huge advantage.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Comparisons issue
by D-Man - Dec 24th 2006 02:42:09
The new C++ ABI in the GCC 3.0 series uses address comparisons, rather than
string compares, to determine type equality.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: Comparisons issue
by GMan - Feb 10th 2007 14:46:22
> The new C++ ABI in the GCC 3.0 series
> uses address comparisons, rather than
> string compares, to determine type
> equality.
And I much prefer this over old string compares.
--
Popular Sites
[reply]
[top]
[»]
GCC
by Thomas M. - May 2nd 2005 11:24:23
A lot of compilers have come and gone over the last years but GCC has been
one of the leading compilers in use over the last 15 years. It has a long
and critically important history in the free and open source movement. GCC
version 4 now features a new optimization framework (Tree-SSA) and includes
improvements to its optimizer (e.g. dead code elimination,
autovectorisation of loops) as well as language-specific improvements. The
changelog states:
"Independent testers have measured speed-ups up to 25% in real-world
production code, compared to the 3.4 family" (for C++). Tree-SSA will
enable the development of many more optimizations than were reasonably
possible with the old infrastructure - so GCC 4.0 is the base of the next
round of optimization, which will be part of GCC 4.1. Tom
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: GCC
by Veerakumar - May 19th 2005 01:32:08
> A lot of compilers have come and gone
> over the last years but GCC has been one
> of the leading compilers in use over the
> last 15 years. It has a long and
> critically important history in the free
> and open source movement. GCC version 4
> now features a new optimization
> framework (Tree-SSA) and includes
> improvements to its optimizer (e.g. dead
> code elimination, autovectorisation of
> loops) as well as language-specific
> improvements. The changelog states:
> "Independent testers have measured
> speed-ups up to 25% in real-world
> production code, compared to the 3.4
> family" (for C++). Tree-SSA will enable
> the development of many more
> optimizations than were reasonably
> possible with the old infrastructure -
> so GCC 4.0 is the base of the next round
> of optimization, which will be part of
> GCC 4.1. Tom
You are probably wrong. Independent analysis has shown it's quiet same in
performance as earlier version. GCC 4.0 has not been optimized for speed
yet.
--
Visit me at Veera
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: GCC
by Mikael - Dec 17th 2006 10:17:10
> You are probably wrong. Independent
> analysis has shown it's quiet same in
> performance as earlier version. GCC 4.0
> has not been optimized for speed yet.
That's right, but now with the 4.1 things are much better. 4.1 should be
several percentages faster than 4.0.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
missing version...
by eNTi - Aug 15th 2002 12:07:03
meanwhile gcc 3.2 is out. why dont they update on freshmeat?
--
- eNTi
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: missing version...
by Mathias Schindler - May 15th 2003 00:50:19
> meanwhile gcc 3.2 is out. why dont they
> update on freshmeat?
meanwhile gcc 3.2 is out. I just made the announcement on fm some minutes
ago.
btw. "they" also means "you". :)
--
nach uns der synflood.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
GCC 3.0.4 got broken stdc++??
by ghostdancer - Apr 5th 2002 04:06:34
Hm... I just did a configure --prefix follow by
make and make install.
Compiled X, KDE and kernel. No problem so far...
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Broken libstdc++ in GCC 3.0.4
by Ray Vanlandingham - Mar 24th 2002 19:26:01
The version of libstdc++ included with GCC 3.0.4 is somewhat broken.
Specifically, when you attempt to configure it (which normally happens
during 'make bootstrap') the configure script complains that you have a
broken g++, tells you to upgrade to a version of GCC newer than 3.0, and
quits. This leaves you with an effectively broken C++ compiler, since you
don't have a C++ library.
The fix is to get a new version of libstdc++. Unfortunately, the GNUheads
haven't bothered to put any of the recent versions of libstdc++ (i.e.
3.0.x) on the ftp.gnu.org server, and the gnu web page doesn't refer you
to the 'real' project ftp site. So, in order to have a working C++
compiler, get
ftp://sourceware.cygnus.com/pub/libstdc++/libstdc++-v3.0.97-gcc-3.0.4.tar.gz,
and use it to replace the gcc-3.0.4/libstdc++-v3/ directory. Then compile
as normal.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: ?
by jeff covey - Jan 18th 2001 21:47:34
Again, I'm sorry about the delay. As for handling different branches of
a project as semi-separate entities, this is in the plans for freshmeat
][,
which scoop is coding as we speak.
--
vs lbh pna ernq guvf, lbh'er n trrx.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: ?
by Frédéric L. W. Meunier - Jan 18th 2001 21:34:12
We don't make announcements of releases that we can't confirm
The Changelog URL would confirm.
If you had replied to his message and pointed out that the announcement
was taking too long to process, I would have checked it myself to see
whether I would have better luck.
And I thought that he wouldn't announce it, because announcing a test
release after 4-5 doesn't make much sense.
I would recommend changing the Changelog field of the project's
appindex record to point to the latest information.
What I did for both announcements. The problem is that Freshmeat is
somewhat badly designed. If I add another URL on any field it shows up for
any version and also at the appindex, what's wrong. Having different URLs
for each announcement and stable/development releases is much better.
I must admit, I was rude (flames@freshmeat.net is a better place).
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: ?
by jeff covey - Jan 18th 2001 20:06:17
Dear Frederick:
Your comment was not deleted. You attached it to the specific
announcement, not to the general appindex page, so it doesn't show up
on http://freshmeat.net/projects/gcc/. I believe comments posted to
specific announcements previously appeared on the page for their
announcements (in this case, http://freshmeat.net/history/44942/),
but this doesn't seem to be true at the moment. Here's a copy of your
post for anyone who missed it:
Check here. Consider
this my last contribution to Freshmeat. I posted it 4-5 days ago when
it was released, then someone from Freshmeat replied that he couldn't
connect to the host from his machine (despite both download locations
working without any problems for me on various machines). OK, but 4-5
days to announce it? Give me a break. I really thought that announcing
such test releases would help the GCC team, mainly because this site
is popular, but if it's to get it announced with a huge delay, no
thanks. If it wasn't enough, the announcements are edited and relevant
information is removed, like the URL of the announcement from the
mailing-list archives.
I'm sorry that your submission was delayed. We don't make
announcements of releases that we can't confirm, and I didn't realize
Nathan was still having trouble connecting to the download URLs. If
you had replied to his message and pointed out that the announcement
was taking too long to process, I would have checked it myself to see
whether I would have better luck.
As for the URL in the changes description, we don't allow HTML in our
posts because our data is posted to newsgroups, pulled from
http://freshmeat.net/backend/, etc. by people who are expecting to
receive plain text. I would recommend changing the Changelog field of
the project's appindex record to point to the latest information.
Sincerely,
Jeff
--
vs lbh pna ernq guvf, lbh'er n trrx.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
?
by Frédéric L. W. Meunier - Jan 17th 2001 21:39:08
Censorship? It seems that you can't post a comment with relevant
information about an announcement that got edited by a butcher and also
say why it was announced 4-5 days after the submission. If you want to
delete this comment, also don't forget to remove my account (otherwise
I'll post it again), since I won't give a fuck to your site. Have a nice
day.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Announcement for 2.95.3.test1
by Frédéric L. W. Meunier - Jan 2nd 2001 22:50:17
Check here.
[reply]
[top]
|
