On 20010720 Chris Mumford wrote:
>> gcc3.0 is in contrib and wasn't ready when mdk8.0 got out of the box
>(needless
>> to says that using a new compiler means rebuilding all packages (3-4 days
>with
>> rpm-rebuilder) and _testing_)
>
>The only package that I know has problems with 2.96 is LAME. It builds, but
>has runtime errors in the release build. I switched to the 3.0 compiler and
>the problems went away.
>
I also would love gcc-3.0 as the standard compiler. I use C++ and it is the best
C++ compiler in gcc history. And support for the new ISO C99 is marvelous, also.
People progamming in C should know how much of C++ features are 'backported' to
C99.
But I understand that it will take a long time
to become the default compiler by some reasons:
- It is more standards compliant, so it means it is more pedantic about bad code,
and people prefer a silent compiler that just swallows bugs or bad programming
practices instead of shouting aloud. There are tons of bad misuses of C
around there, like supposing the compiler lies data in certain ways to do by hand
strange low level optimizations. Or do things like 'lets reorder this code, lets
change an if for a goto, and this piece of code is faster and fits in a cache
line'.
- I have read it still produces a slightly slower code (5-10%)
than 2.95. But this can also be caused by bad over-optimizations in 2.95, that
usually do not blow on your face, but are hidden awaiting its time. And a big
amount of 2.96 bug corrections are backported from 3.0.
- It is still much slower compiling than 2.96.
BTW, I think that the new g++ ABI is incompatible with all previuos versions, but
has been thought enough to be stable and do not need any more changes in the future.
--
J.A. Magallon # Let the source be with you...
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mandrake Linux release 8.1 (Cooker) for i586
Linux werewolf 2.4.6-ac5 #1 SMP Wed Jul 18 17:25:15 CEST 2001 i686
