Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

GCC 4.1 Released

CowboyNeal posted more than 8 years ago | from the compile-that-compiler dept.

343

Luineancaion writes "Looks like GCC 4.1 has been released. From what I know this includes the GNU Classpath merge and means that Azureus can now be used in a 100% Free-Software system. Thanks to everyone that worked on it, and keep up the good work!"

cancel ×

343 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

But... (5, Funny)

brilinux (255400) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110657)

But I just finished compiling 4.0...

Re:But... (1)

ciroknight (601098) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110672)

I just moved to an operating system with 4.0. Wonder how long this'll take to hit the repositories.

Re:But... (1)

dtfinch (661405) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110696)

Very likely never. You'll have to wait for the next major release, or install "unstable" packages.

Re:But... (5, Informative)

strider44 (650833) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110776)

You're making too much of this. Between 4.0 and 4.1 isn't that big-a change. The only reason why it took so long for many distros to move between 3.3 and 3.4/4.0 was the change in the binary interface between the compilers. In other words a program compiled with 4.0 couldn't link to a library compiled with 3.3. There isn't this restriction between 4.0 and 4.1 so there's no reason why it can't go into the repositories straight after testing.

Re:But... (2, Informative)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110809)

Just to clarify, the ABI changes only apply to C++ libraries/code, not C.

Re:But... (1)

strider44 (650833) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110922)

yep sorry I should have mentioned that.

Re:But... (1)

jZnat (793348) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110906)

Ah, the wonders of a versioning system. If you understood it at all, you'd know that GCC 4.x would be incompatible with GCC 3.x. Going by this logic, GCC 4.1 should be an easy upgrade from GCC 4.0, but just as bad if you still had to upgrade from GCC 3.3 or 3.4.

Re:But... (2, Informative)

strider44 (650833) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110929)

No actually that's wrong, if only slightly. GCC 3.3.* and below use a different C++ ABI to GCC 3.4, 4.0, and 4.1. Even Debian has upgraded from GCC 3.3 to GCC 4.0 so an incremental version upgrade shouldn't be too much of a deal.

Re:But... (2, Funny)

Col. 2.7.0-default (929615) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110744)

Does it slice? Does it dice? Does it even make Julienne fries?

In Soviet Russia (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14110762)

4.0 compiles you

First Pizzost!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14110658)

Lol

deep thuoughts (-1, Redundant)

fregare (923563) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110662)

gcc is good

Home depot (5, Insightful)

Stevyn (691306) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110674)

Most people who program, myself included as an engineering student, probably take this for granted, but GCC is like having a Home Depot down the street that gives their stuff away. For no cost, anyone can use these tools to create just about anything they want. It's pretty amazing, and fitting for Thanksgiving to show some appreciation, that we all have access to these incredible tools for free.

Re:Home depot (1)

Seumas (6865) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110716)

EXACTLY like Thanksgiving.

Damn opensource man coming in and taking over the closedsource man's customer base.

Re:Home depot (5, Informative)

Lisandro (799651) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110796)

GCC is an impressive piece of software - either considered asopen source or in general. A lot of people preffer more "serious" C/C++ compilers, like Intels', but it's a remarkably good compiler by itself, very fast, produces stable and well optimized code AND it is available for every platform you could dream of developing on. Ah, and constantly improving support for other languages (specially Java) is a nice perk aswell :)

    It's safe to say that if we have a healthy OSS community, is because of the great developing tools available on OSS platforms. GCC is a strong contender for that crown, IMHO.

Re:Home depot (1)

eosp (885380) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110884)

Something that basically said just like Home Depot

Long lines and everything...it is the holiday season.

LOL. (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14110950)

I find it funny that we bitch and moan when people compare copyright infringement to theft, but then let comments like the parent's slip. Nothing personal against the parent; just trying to point out the inconsistencies.

It is virtually free to copy and distribute software (though someone has to pay for the bandwidth), and the act of producing one more copy does not use any physical resources.

Hammers and screwdrivers cost money to manufacture and ship, and producing one more uses limited physical resources like wood, plastic, and metal.

Until hammers and screwdrivers are virtually free to reproduce and distribute, and producing one more does not use limited resources, please don't compare apples to oranges.

I fart in your general direction (-1, Offtopic)

Henry Bone (691064) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110678)

XHTML 1.0 "transitional". That's shite. Try strict. transitional is for loosers. :-)

Re:I fart in your general direction (0, Offtopic)

bersl2 (689221) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110687)

The people on the Internet aren't ready for XHTML 1.0 Strict.

Re:I fart in your general direction (1)

mvdw (613057) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110808)

Spelling transitional? That's shite. Try strict.

Re:I fart in your general direction (1)

ketsugi (930099) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110844)

I suppose "Strict" is for "tighters" then?

Re:I fart in your general direction (1)

HeroreV (869368) | more than 8 years ago | (#14111104)

Not only that, but it's being sent as "text/html" and has presentation mixed into the markup. Quite nasty.

Know and love GCC (5, Interesting)

JoeShmoe950 (605274) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110686)

As a developer, I love GCC. Its great, easy, and best of all free. GCC is probably one of the most benifical open source projects around, more important even than linux.

Re:Know and love GCC (4, Funny)

AFairlyNormalPerson (721898) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110891)

GCC is bigger than Jesus!

Re:Know and love GCC (1, Interesting)

Leroy_Brown242 (683141) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110932)

I see them more as a symbiosis.

Where would GCC be without Linux?
Where would Linux be without GCC?

Re:Know and love GCC (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14111139)

GCC would be GCC without Linux. Linux wouldn't exist without GCC. Also, there's BSD. If Linux disappeared off the face of the earth tomorrow, very few people would notice or care.

Masters of understatement (3, Insightful)

ReformedExCon (897248) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110702)

You'd never know it by the link provided that there was anything special about this release.

I am interested in how well it supports ARM5, seeing as how it was dropped as the recommended compiler for certain platforms.

Re:Masters of understatement (4, Informative)

diegocgteleline.es (653730) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110936)

Hey, I like this: "GCC can now emit code for protecting applications from stack-smashing attacks. The protection is realized by buffer overflow detection and reordering of stack variables to avoid pointer corruption"

on the java side (2, Interesting)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110705)

are they using the gcj as chacheing jit (e.g. GCJ run on demand to turn class files into shared objects which are then loaded dynamically) system that was mentioned in one of the papers i read recently or what?

Re:on the java side (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14110764)

I don't know, but compiling Java with it doesn't seem to improve it. If anything, the result is slower and more of a RAM hog than ever -- see Eclipse for an example. I don't think it's because the JVM is particularly good (bloaty and slow is a fact of life with Java)... but because GCJ is doing a really awful job. It may well be free, but fucking hell, the result is dire.

That's not how JIT works (1)

horacerumpole (877156) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110791)

Just regarding your description of JIT - that's not how JIT works, at least not the implementation I know off.

What JIT does is to actually create binary code in-memory and then execute it. Nothing to do with shared objects.

Re:That's not how JIT works (1)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110866)

its not how conventional jit works indeed

it was mentioned in some GCJ paper i read and i wondered if they were actually doing it yet or not. The advantage is it uses traditional compiler tech which is well understood and it can be preseeded so the compiler doesn't have to be used at runtime unless an unknown class is encountered without breaking the dynamics of java (java is very dynamic, you can load classes at will from anywhere and start calling thier methods immediately through reflection).

Re:That's not how JIT works (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14110869)

So shared objects aren't made out of binary code, they're made out of... mayonaise? cream cheese? horseradish?

Re:That's not how JIT works (1)

LDoggg_ (659725) | more than 8 years ago | (#14111137)

"it`s so easy to make! You just get cocaine and some baking soda... and I think I tasted egg and cinnamon..."

Re:on the java side (4, Informative)

ghakko (261165) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110961)

The caching JIT has been available since 3.4, but is disabled by default. To turn it on, you'll need to add these switches to your gij command line:

-Dgnu.gcj.jit.compiler=/usr/bin/gcj -Dgnu.gcj.jit.cachedir=/tmp -Dgnu.gcj.jit.options=-O2

In practice, this is not a great help because gij and gcj are so slow. You may be able to get much better results compiling directly from Java source to machine code, and then prelinking the resulting executables and shared objects to reduce startup time.

Re:on the java side (1)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 8 years ago | (#14111068)

i think the idea was to precache most of the stuff your app would use and then let the caching jit take care of anything user supplied or otherwise not possible to precache.

yippee! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14110706)

Azureus can now be used in a 100% Free-Software system.

So now we don't need to use proprietary (but $free) libraries when we illegally download music and copies of photoshop? Holy shit on a penis batman!

Free! Free! I'm Free! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14110707)

"From what I know this includes the GNU Classpath merge and means that Azureus can now be used in a 100% Free-Software system. "

GO MONO!

Java status? (3, Interesting)

harmonica (29841) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110708)

From the story: From what I know this includes the GNU Classpath merge and means that Azureus can now be used in a 100% Free-Software system.

Sounds interesting. Is there any ChangeLog to read? I browsed the gcc and the gcj pages, but I couldn't find anything.

Re:Java status? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14110803)

Changelog here

      http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.1/changes.html [gnu.org]

GCC is the Key to Open Source's Success (5, Insightful)

slashfun (831726) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110709)

For 13 years I have been a professional UNIX administrator, and if I had to pin down the single most influential software that help propel the Open Source revolution, I would name GCC.

Back in the day the first step in loading up a UNIX workstation with Open Source tools, was to go out and grab a limited precompiled version of GCC, then bootstrap compile an more suitable version, then go to town on compiling all the rest of the goodies that we couldn't live without. We did it so often that it became second nature to go through this process.

I salute you, makers and maintainers of GCC.

Re:GCC is the Key to Open Source's Success (1)

TorKlingberg (599697) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110779)

Looks just like the Gentoo installation process to me.

Re:GCC is the Key to Open Source's Success (1)

EzInKy (115248) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110895)


Looks just like the Gentoo installation process to me.


Not anymore. Gentoo has deprecated [gentoo.org] building the system from scratch and only supports binary installs now. Add on software is still compiled from source though.

Re:GCC is the Key to Open Source's Success (2, Informative)

Cardoe (563677) | more than 8 years ago | (#14111041)

This isn't necessary correct. You can still install from stage1 and stage2, it just won't be documented directly in the Install Doc because of too many users that were a bit too clueless at Linux attempting to do a stage1 install. Also it reduces the confusion and complexity for first-timers.

Also considering the age of the packages found in all the stage tarballs all of them have been replaced by newer versions so when you install Gentoo you will actually recompile everything from source.

Re:GCC is the Key to Open Source's Success (5, Insightful)

jbn-o (555068) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110928)

Please do take this in the supportive spirit in which it is intended. It's a letter from GCC's initial author, Richard Stallman [com.com] (also founder of the free software movement) to a CNet article author who referred to GCC as an "open source" programming tool.

Quoting from that letter:

I appreciate the admiration expressed in your article about upgrading the GNU Compiler Collection [gnu.org] , but it erred in describing the program as an "open source" programming tool. I developed GCC as part of the Free Software Movement [wikipedia.org] --so that people can use computers in freedom as part of a community.

Free software means software that respects the users' freedom. The philosophy of the movement is that users of software should be free to run it, study it, change it, redistribute it and publish modified versions.

With these freedoms, you're free to engage in cooperative development; you're also free to develop it on your own or to redistribute it unchanged. Describing this as a "philosophy of cooperative development" emphasizes one beneficial consequence of freedom at the expense of freedom itself.

It was impossible in 1984 to use a computer in freedom, since all the operating systems were proprietary. So I launched the development of GNU, a free Unix-like operating system.

A Unix-like system must include a C compiler, so I wrote one: GCC. I designed it to handle other languages, also, so that GNU users could use more than one. GCC, like the GNU/Linux operating system in which GCC is a crucial part, exists because of the ideals of the Free Software Movement--the ideals that are forgotten when speaking of open source.

Of course, this is not a letter from RMS to you or directly pertaining to your article. However, I thought that it was worth mentioning in case people want to tell their friends about the new GCC release. It seems that people who frequent /. go to some length to make sure that they describe Linus Torvalds' initial authorship of the Linux kernel in a manner according to his chosen movement. I thought that the same respect should be due to RMS.

Re:GCC is the Key to Open Source's Success (3, Insightful)

ReformedExCon (897248) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110969)

Free Software is a subset of Open Source Software, so to say that GCC is Open Source is absolutely correct, if perhaps more general than RMS would prefer.

You would make the butt of jokes anyone who tried to demand that you call Roma tomatoes "Roma Tomatoes" every single time you referred to them instead of referring to them generally as tomatoes. It simply does not make any difference to anyone what you call them as long as you get the point across that the thing in question falls into a certain group. You can make that group as broad as you want or as narrow as you want, but there is a happy medium where the label is non-offensive and clear to any and all that hear it. Going too narrow may provide more information but at a loss of understanding to your audience.

RMS is in error here, but not because he thinks that software designated Free Software ought not be referred to as Open Source software, but because he thinks that anyone cares.

RMS wrote GCC to pursue software freedom. (4, Insightful)

jbn-o (555068) | more than 8 years ago | (#14111099)

The philosophical difference RMS describes is quite clear and RMS points it out quite well. The benefits we get from free software are great, but they shouldn't be celebrated at the expense of celebrating the freedom free software gives us for its own sake. You can't "make that group as broad as you want or as narrow as you want" and still convey the same point. People might not know about software freedom, so it's easy to make that mistake without any malicious intent (as I think was the case here). But to set out to refer to programs like GCC—programs written to make software freedom real—in the name of a movement that was built in part to not mention software freedom is ahistorical.

Azureus (5, Funny)

DavidLeeRoth (865433) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110710)

Azurues can now be used in a 100% free system to download not so free software :)

Changelog? (4, Interesting)

Theovon (109752) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110713)

No mention of a changelog? If you're going to announce something, it sure would be nice to have a link to a page that explains some interesting stuff about what's new in it. I've tried looking at their wiki, but its 'news' section and its stuff on 4.1 hasn't been updated since like March.

Re:Changelog? (5, Informative)

Yotsuya (4378) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110745)

Google to the rescue.

http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.1/changes.html [gnu.org]

But what about fixes? (2, Informative)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110868)

About a month ago, I submitted a bug report for an internal compiler error. The GCC guys jumped on it, but I don't see in that change log a mention of what particular bugs got fixed in GCC 4.1.

Is the changelog just oddly incomplete, or am I looking in the wrong place for the list of bugs that got fixed in this release?

Re:But what about fixes? (2, Informative)

imroy (755) | more than 8 years ago | (#14111130)

The "changes" document appears to just list the added features, changes in ABI, and changes in the language parsers. The GCC homepage has two links to their bugzilla system: serious regressions [gnu.org] and all known regressions [gnu.org] . Your bug *should* be in there somewhere.

LLVM and GCC will likely merge within a year (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14110914)

It looks like GCC will merge with LLVM [gnu.org] . Follow the discussion thread to see key GCC developers agree [gnu.org] to the many benefits of using LLVM. And even if LLVM is not folded into GCC, Apple plans to use LLVM [gnu.org] as its backend anyway.

That's good. (5, Funny)

Sheepdot (211478) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110717)

From what I know this includes the GNU Classpath merge and means that Azureus can now be used in a 100% Free-Software system.

That's good for us, considering that the #1 use of Azureus is to pirate 100% commercial software.

Re:That's good. (2, Insightful)

jsight (8987) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110766)


That's good for us, considering that the #1 use of Azureus is to pirate 100% commercial software.


I doubt that. It's probably movies and tv shows.

Re:That's good. (2, Informative)

jZnat (793348) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110925)

Porn [empornium.us] and upgrades to Azureus I'd imagine would be a better response.

Re:That's good. (1)

dr2chase (653338) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110802)

[This has not too much to do with gcc, but...] You could do something about that. I use Azureus, and according to its accounting I have downloaded 14.5GB of stuff, and shared 371.9 of that back. All legal, some of it even the time it took to suck it down. For all the kvetching about the RIAA, you'd thing people would do more to raise the proportion of legal file sharing.

[Ah, I CAN bring this back on topic.] The reason I use Azureus, and the reason that free software purists should be happy about this, is that Java is a safe language. Look at all the buffer-overflow-based holes in software written in C and C++; Java prevents those by design. Good Free Java support means that a person can be a paranoid/prudent peer-to-peer platform provenance purist.

Java like a sieve (1, Informative)

Danuvius (704536) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110838)

Java leaks like a sieve. Azureus can't run for more than 24 hours without causing noticable slowdown... java is still an unprofessional mess more than a decade after it was supposed to change the world.

Re:Java like a sieve (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14110872)

Which JRE are you talking about? It might be fair to say "Sun's JVM leaks like a sieve", but you can't make a generalisation about all runtime environments. Have you tested gcj, for example?

Re:Java like a sieve (1)

dr2chase (653338) | more than 8 years ago | (#14111074)

Your general statement isn't true for me. I run Azureus for weeks at a time on a 400Mhz G4, first running 1.4, now running 1.5. I also run speed-scheduler and keep track of its performance, so I'd notice if it had problems. I'm pretty sure gcj uses the Boehm-Weiser collector; it's proven (tested) to be less leaky than most programs written by C programmers (the tools that find leaks in C programs use the same technology (conservative GC) as BW GC, but instead of collecting the garbage, you're expected to fix your program). By-the-way, 64-bit address spaces are expected to be a win for conservative GC, since they tend to make pointers overlap a smaller set of integers.

And even if did leak -- it's vastly easier to restart a program, than it is to decontaminate a wormy box that's been jacked into by buffer overflows.

But anyhow -- if it's open source, and you have leaks, you can see about fixing them yourself. In many ways the Boehm-Weiser collector is a good deal more approachable than the ones that you find in many Java VMs (I've worked on both); ordinary programmers have a prayer of understanding its behavior (a multithreaded generational collector with finalizers and weak/soft/phantom/JNI-weak references is a truly astonishing piece of software).

Re:Java like a sieve (1)

sbrown123 (229895) | more than 8 years ago | (#14111154)

I've ran Azureus for quite a bit, for days as a matter of fact. Haven't experienced the problem you speak of. I was using Sun's JRE 1.5 though so maybe you are using something else. But you shouldnt have since Azureus clearly states to use Sun's JRE 1.5 on their homepage. Change it and your problem will probably go away. If not, post your problem to the Azureus bug tracker and someone can probably help you deduce where your real problem is. Slashdot is not a good forum for airing your problems since it will be unlikely that it will get fixed since you will probably only be seen as someone who has an issue with the Java programming language rather than someone will a real problem. If it is that you just have a general problem with the Java programming language: get over it. Its just a programming language!

Sense and portability (3, Interesting)

noz (253073) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110720)

I was always angry with Sun touting Java(R)(TM)*** as portable when run-time environments were made available for only a small (albeit popular) set of architecture/operating system pairs. My Alpha running Debian at home and my Alpha running FreeBSD at work were left cold, lonely, and wanting Java; running a subset of Java applications with free software partial implementations. This is a triumph for FOSS.

Division and incompatiability. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14110812)

"This is a triumph for FOSS."

Come on Java forks.

Re:Sense and portability (1)

Ph33r th3 g(O)at (592622) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110818)

Java, cross platform. So long as you're running exactly the right version of the JVM, under exactly the right version of the right web browser, under the right operating system.

I'm thinking of contributing to GCC... (3, Interesting)

TwoBit (515585) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110724)

I love GCC, but I lament that its ability to do inlining is rather bad.
I'm wondering how hard it would be join the project and work on rectifying this.

Re:I'm thinking of contributing to GCC... (5, Insightful)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110847)

Depends. Did you get an A++ in your graduate-level compiler construction class? Are you willing to spend a couple months (or more) reading through the gcc source code to get an understanding of how all the pieces work. Are you willing to spend a few more months testing your optimizations (mathematically and with source code) to make sure they don't break anything?

The basics of compilers aren't difficult. 2nd year CS students can understand toy compilers. But gcc isn't a toy compiler, it's a real compiler in the real world dealing with a sometimes crazy language, and even crazier users. If you can write better optimizing code, prove it works, and it doesn't infringe on any patents, submit your code.

Not a programmer but (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14110733)

what (if any) implications will this have on OO.o?

Re:Not a programmer but (1)

ReformedExCon (897248) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110742)

quote
what (if any) implications will this have on OO.o?
/ quote

You probably won't be able to link it anymore. You'll have to rebuild from source.

But..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14110735)

Does it run linux?

A big thanks to the GCC team. (2, Insightful)

rice_burners_suck (243660) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110747)

Well, it's Thanksgiving, so let's give all the good folks in the GCC team a big warm Thanks for all the years of improvement to this centrally important software package. Without GCC, it is doubtful that the free software movement could be taking place at all. And with the improvements that have been added in the last year or two, GCC is getting to the point that commercial software vendors will have to come up with some really innovative ideas to compete with it, even for production of commercial software! In fact, I think all software for the Mac is compiled with GCC 4 and onwards.

Thanks folks, and happy Thanksgiving.

Re:A big thanks to the GCC team. (1)

zoloto (586738) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110880)

My big warm thanks will be to donate some substantial funds to them. They seriously kicks some major domo for this kind of work. /me looks for a way to donate!

I wonder... (-1, Redundant)

Tamerlan (817217) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110756)

Where are release notes? As a professional developer I am intereted in questions:

* Did they introduce even more stricter C++ syntactic and semantic checks?
* Did they break C++ ABI again?
* Any new significant optimization algorithms for SSEs, 64-bit extensions to ix86?

Actually, it's not released yet (5, Informative)

Dan Berlin (682091) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110775)

I'm not sure what gave the person who submitted the story, or the editor who posted the story, the idea that 4.1 was released, but it isn't. In fact, it was just branched less than a week ago. We haven't even put out an RC yet! Really, it's not out. When it is, you will see something sent to gcc-announce

Still not released (5, Informative)

lancelott (840771) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110797)

GCC 4.1.0 is not yet out as far as I know. This story is misleading. Just because the site lists 4.1.0 on the front does not mean it is out. Notice that it doesn't have a release date on it.

athlon64? (1)

RoadkillBunny (662203) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110807)

How's the amd64 support in it? Last time I checked it still wasn't stable...

Re:athlon64? (1)

g-to-the-o-to-the-g (705721) | more than 8 years ago | (#14111047)

Hmm...looks like your sources suck. I've been happily running amd64 Gentoo for more then a year with no complaints, and loads of stability. See for yourself [gentoo.org] .

What was wrong with Azureus? (1)

Nermal6693 (622898) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110810)

Azureus can now be used in a 100% Free-Software system.

For those of us who aren't Linux geeks :) what was wrong with Azureus before?

Re:What was wrong with Azureus? (2, Informative)

sr180 (700526) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110840)

Azureus is programmed in Java. Therefore it had to execute under a Java Runtime Environment (JRE) as provided by Sun or IBM. All of these JRE's are not free. Now Azureus can be compiled by GCC (which is free), Azureus can be executed in a 100% free environment.

Re:What was wrong with Azureus? (1)

mbaciarello (800433) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110889)

Thanks for the info, I have one more question though - that's just me knowing pretty much nothing about Java. Say I have an existing installation of Azureus and upgrade to GCC 4.1. Does that mean I could scrap my JRE? Or would I have to recompile Azureus to do that?

Re:What was wrong with Azureus? (1)

sr180 (700526) | more than 8 years ago | (#14111087)

You would need to recompile Azureus using GCC.

Re:What was wrong with Azureus? (1)

LDoggg_ (659725) | more than 8 years ago | (#14111128)

You may be able to use Azureus as is with gij(gnu intepreter for java) as opposed to natively compiling it with gcj(gnu compiler for java).
Considering that Azureus pulls down bytecode updates, gij is probably the way to go.

I've been using gij and gcj for a while in fedora and am very pleased with how its development is coming along.
That said, I would go scrapping the Sun jre just yet.

Though I haven't tried this new 4.1 version, I have had some minor issues with gij/gcj and the java apps I'm using and even some I've written :)

Re:What was wrong with Azureus? (1)

jofi (908156) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110893)

Sun's JRE and JDK were free last I checked.

Re:What was wrong with Azureus? (1)

Chuckstar (799005) | more than 8 years ago | (#14111112)

Do you lose any functionality by compiling Java to machine code? Maybe not with Azureus, but in general don't some of Java's features preclude compiling directly to machine code (as opposed to JVM code)?

Clearly you could just avoid using those features, but I'm curious if you get "full-featured" Java when using the GCC Java compiler.

What was wrong with Pragmatism? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14110935)

"For those of us who aren't Linux geeks :) what was wrong with Azureus before?"

It made RMS sad.

Changes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14110823)

The anouncement here is a tad early (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14110832)

Just checked 3 mirror sites and it's not there yet.

Nothing like research... (1)

OSDever (792851) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110839)

Nothing like research BEFORE posting an article. If you look at the homepage you will see that 4.1 hasn't been released.

And by the way, XHTML 1.0 of any type just won't work in the real high-quality web designing world.. XHTML 1.1 is the way to go, if you can't get 2.0 to work. (Yes, I know it hasn't been completely defined yet.)

Re:Nothing like research... (1)

Jesselnz (866138) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110977)

XHTML 1.1's name is misleading, it's really just modular XHTML 1.0. Unless you plan on taking advantage of its modular features, there's no reason to use it over 1.0 strict.

Re:Nothing like research... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14111073)

Actually, XHTML 1.1 does have differences from 1.0 besides modularity. But even without looking at that, the XHTML 1.1 sticker looks cooler on your site than the 1.0 Strict one. ;-)

Re:Nothing like research... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14111115)

Yes, and XHTML 1.1 and 2.0 are like most open source software.. incompatible with previous versions. I think we should all stick on XHTML 1.0 strict for some time and let things like web browsers and tools finish catching up. If we ignore it long enough, the W3 will treat it like HTML 3.0.. drop all the BS changes out and release a new version that makes sense.

Uhhh.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14110897)

From what I know this includes the GNU Classpath merge and means that Azureus can now be used in a 100% Free-Software system.
What about kaffe? That couldn't run it? I've never had any desire to run Azureus so I don't know. I also use the Sun JDK so I'm a cheater. :P

This release, AFAIK, includes the sucessor to ProPolice mainline, am I right? That's pretty major if you ask me, but then I use OpenBSD so I've had that for awhile.

Let me know when it stops sucking (1)

Mancat (831487) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110905)

Gcc has a history of, well, sucking arse for the first few major revisions of any release tree. Is gcc 4 ready for prime-time now, or should I continue on with gcc 3.x? I've already heard of gcc 4 enforcing strict rules that breaks otherwise functional code. I remember how much of a headache that was when gcc 3 rolled around and started spitting out compiler errors that basically said "your code is ugly."

Re:Let me know when it stops sucking (3, Insightful)

Pr0xY (526811) | more than 8 years ago | (#14111114)

you make it sound like enforcing strict rules is a bad thing. Really the only bad thing that gcc has done is accept that _broken_ code in the past. The fact that it no longer will compile constructs which are invalid in c and c++ is an improvment. c and c++ are just like any other standard (think html/xhtml and such) and when a compiler accepts invalid constructs it destroys the portability of the code.

The true ideal is to be able to write code that if it compiles on gcc you can say "i know for certain that this is valid c++". Such a goal is difficult, if not impossible (many things are "implementation defined") but is stilla goal worth shooting for.

C and Objective-C (3, Insightful)

SpinJaunt (847897) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110947)

* The old Bison-based C and Objective-C parser has been replaced by a new, faster hand-written recursive-descent parser.


I wince at the thought. The sick f*ck(s) deserves a pat on the back and a six-pack at least. Oh and a pay raise.

4.1.0 is not released (1)

Soap (641194) | more than 8 years ago | (#14110948)

GCC 4.1.0 hasn't been released, they just branched for 4.1.x. Look at all the regressions left.

gcc 4.1 changes linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14111048)

I am confused. How would this affect a linux install if you recompiled the sources using the new GCC

Thx 2 RH (1)

Libor Vanek (248963) | more than 8 years ago | (#14111107)

IANAGCCD (I am NOT a GCC developer ;-))) but AFAIK we should all thanks to RedHat for putting lot of "people-time" (read - money) into GCC and making constant improvements of it!

Some minor corrections ... (5, Informative)

ghakko (261165) | more than 8 years ago | (#14111125)

GCC 4.1 has not been released yet.

A modified version of Classpath has been included with GCJ since 3.2.

Azureus may start in GIJ 4.0, but won't work properly because it relies on parts of the Sun JDK which aren't completely implemented yet in GCJ.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>