Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 07:52:15 -0600 From: "B. Estrade" <estrabd@gmail.com> To: Roman Divacky <rdivacky@freebsd.org> Cc: Andrew Reilly <andrew-freebsd@areilly.bpc-users.org>, Ollivier Robert <roberto@keltia.freenix.fr>, Christoph Mallon <christoph.mallon@gmx.de>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: gcc 4.3: when will it become standard compiler? Message-ID: <20090109135215.GI1020@bc3.lsu.edu> In-Reply-To: <20090109134725.GA38233@freebsd.org> References: <49668763.8020705@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de> <20090108233311.GA69883@keltia.freenix.fr> <20090109031147.GB44317@duncan.reilly.home> <49672189.5060109@gmx.de> <20090109110508.GA12123@freebsd.org> <496751D1.20605@gmx.de> <20090109134725.GA38233@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Jan 09, 2009 at 02:47:25PM +0100, Roman Divacky wrote: > On Fri, Jan 09, 2009 at 02:32:01PM +0100, Christoph Mallon wrote: > > Roman Divacky schrieb: > > >>I'm not saying it's wrong to look for alternatives, but you cannot just > > >>change your system compiler like you change underwear. > > > > > >well... the first step is imho starting to compile world with C99... > > >that might reveal some bugs, note that as of a few months ago > > >8-current compiles cleanly with C99, that does not mean that it's > > >working when you run those programs correctly :) > > > > One step in the right direction is embracing the nice features modern C > > offers you. For example declaring a variable right were you need it > > instead of dozens of lines away is one such nice thing which improves > > readability. Designated initializers improve readability, too. > > But I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "compile world with C99". C99 > > is pretty much backwards compatible to C89. > > sorry for the bad wording - I meant to turn C99 compilation on default. > We compile in gnu89 mode now. This is slightly off topic, but how important might it be wrt SMP progress for there to be OpenMP support in the C compiler? I am not suggesting this be part of any FreeBSD code, but I find having OpenMP support in the base compiler very appealing for many reasons - one of which is SMP benchmarking/testing. I ask because while shared memory executables produced by 4.2.1 are not the fastest (when using OpenMP), the directives are at least mostly supported. And I suppose that the later version of gcc will only get better. On the otherhand, other solutions don't seem to have this support whatsoever - so I ask again, how important might this kind of support be when considering /which/ compiler to use? Thank you, Brett > > > >>PCC cannot seriously be considered. Its design is stuck in the > > >>seventies. From the point of view of compiler construction it is plain > > >>plain out of question. I especially was amused by the statement of the > > >>author who claimed PCC supports SSA - except for phi-functions. > > > > > >what's wrong with design stuck in 70's when it compiles the whole > > >world/kernel? > > > > > >I would not use it for default compilation of releases but it might be > > >useful when you are developing - because of its fast compilation times > > > > If you want a real speed devil, try TCC. > > well.. tcc does not seem to be integrated by any *BSD while pcc has been > adopted by netbsd and openbsd :) that shows it has something good (at least > good promotion *grin*) > > > >btw.. are you sure the design is stuck in the 70's? the author claims > > >to have rewritten almost the whole thing. have you looked at the recent > > >code? > > > > It's still a simple tree based approach. From point of view of > > optimisations this often gets in the way. For example you need temporary > > variables as helper construct which just complicates things (yes, there > > are intermediate representations which do not have temporary variables > > at all). Much has happend in compiler land in the last 30 years. Now we > > have stuff like SSA and some are even doing code generation in this > > form. I can go into more details, but this is not the right place. > > ok.. I just wanted to be sure you looked at the new version. > > > >another question - how is libfirm/cparser? last time I tried it didnt > > >support much of the gcc options (-Wsomething -f-something etc.) so > > >it could not be used as a direct drop-in > > > > The next release will support several more switches for GCC > > compatibility. Here's the latest manpage: > > http://tron.homeunix.org/cparser.1 - you can view it with "nroff -man > > cparser.1". Switches like -Wl, and -Wp, are supported. Many bugs have > > been resolved. More warning options have been added - many similar to > > what GCC does, some doing a better job. We plan to make a new release > > Really Soon Now(TM). > > ok.. looking forward :) > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" -- B. Estrade Louisiana Optical Network Initiative +1.225.578.1920 aim: bz743 :wq
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090109135215.GI1020>