9 ms·
GCC celebrates its 25th anniversary with the release of 4.7.0
- hamidr 15y agoyup. Now lets discuss the modular system?
- duaneb 15y agoGCC 5.0 [citation needed.] It was on HN and /r/programming a few days ago.
- pjmlp 15y agoCongratulations! Before GCC existed, UNIX vendors used to sell the C compiler + tools in expensive separate SDK, the same way the OSS community complains about certain companies nowadays. Without it, the way we develop software today would look really different.
- mahmud 15y agoGNU liberated software, and software users. Long live the revolution!
- gcp 15y agoThe new revolution is that the compiler is for free but you need the right patent licenses to use it. It's called LLVM. But they, it's modular, so we can ignore that. For now.
- mahmud 15y agoNo, the new revolution is "compiler? here, I too wrote one!" ;-)
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- cbsmith 15y agoI was under the impression that [patents were no longer believed to be an issue](http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#patents http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#patents "LLVM Patent Policy") any more than they'd be for GCC (which is arguably more vulnerable to patent issues).
- gillianseed 15y agoWhy would gcc be more vulnerable to patent issues?
- marshray 15y agoThe expression "A any more than B" doesn't imply B > 0, it just discusses A - B.
- gillianseed 15y agoEh, what? I responded to: > GCC (which is arguably more vulnerable to patent issues) And that statement certainly implies that A is _more_ vulnerable than B which promted me to ask what would make it _more_ vulnerable as I can't see in what way that would be true.
- marshray 15y agoAh, never mind then. :-)
- cbsmith 15y agoGCC represents a lot of technology for parsing/compiler/optimizing/handling platform differences/generating executable formats, and it does so in a fairly traditional fashion. Generally with software patents, what really exposes you is doing things more like everyone else does. Counter intuitive, but true.
- cbsmith 15y agoThat's not exactly true. Most Unix's came with a compiler, particularly in the early days preceding the first release of GCC. I think Sun was one of the first proprietary vendors to start shipping a compiler separately, and I can't remember if GCC was already around when that happened, but it was at most an emerging trend when the GCC project started. I seem to recall that part of the impetus (along with the increased adoption of C for programming embedded systems) to switch to the more retargetable GCC 2.x architecture was the emergence of the "don't include the compiler" trend that made interest in having GCC for more platforms and languages, but perhaps my memory is fuzzy.
- pjmlp 15y agoThe trend started shortly after AT&T changed the license to a more commercial license. It also overlaps with the time that AT&T tried to sue the Berkeley university. If I recall correctly, for HP-UX, Aix, Irix and Solaris, the vendor compilers have always been extra. And in other OS at the time, the don't include the compiler, was the trend, if I am not mistaken.
- cbsmith 15y agoPerhaps my memory is not as good as I once thought it was. I had thought C compilers were shipped or provided gratis on most platforms until a short time before Solaris. I could swear AIX did ship a compiler for a while, as I recall a time when I struggled to compile Emacs & GCC with AIX's compiler. Indeed, I remember even Windows NT had its compiler available for free (not Visual C++, just the NT compiler). I remember OS/2 didn't, and that earned it much scorn. I also have memories of GCC being ported to most platforms (and originally, it didn't really run on that many platforms) before the compilers stopped being available. Anyway, I really can't confidently stand behind those memories the more I think about it. The one thing I do remember was that when Sun stopped giving away their compiler, it was a big deal, and not helped by the fact that GCC struggled to match it's optimizer.
- abrahamsen 15y agoThe revision history go back almost that long (November 1988): https://www.ohloh.net/p/gcc/analyses/latest https://www.ohloh.net/p/gcc/analyses/latest
- winter_blue 15y agoBy the way, does anyone know of an easy way to install gcc47 on OS X? I've tried brew, port & fink to no avail.
- andrus 15y agoThe standard `./configure && make && make install` shouldn't be un-easy
- 4ad 15y agoGCC can't be compiled by the LLVM compiler shipped with Mac OS X.
- pdhborges 15y agoI built GCC 4.6.3 with GCC 4.2 using the LLVM backend without any problem.
- ssmall 15y agoI thought gcc built its own bootstrap compiler to do the heavy lifting of the build. Can LLVM not build the bootstrap compiler or was I mistaken in thinking this?
- andrus 15y agoThe bootstrap process for gcc involves first building gcc with an existing C compiler, then rebuilding gcc from this first build [1]. I'm still waiting for my build to finish, but i686-apple-darwin11-llvm-gcc-4.2 seems to be handling the gcc 4.7 source fine. [1] http://gcc.gnu.org/install/build.html http://gcc.gnu.org/install/build.html
- ssmall 15y agoAh for some reason I had in my head the bootstrap was a smaller, simpler compiler. Thanks for the link and clarification.
- cliffbean 15y agoThis sounds like an excellent occasion for the GCC maintainers to consider how revision control software has progressed in the last 25 years, and to re-evaluate the utility of the ChangeLog file; a manually maintained an "undo list" for all commits.
- malkia 15y agoAnd to think that all that started (GNU), because Xerox denied giving the source code for one of it's printers :) Kudos to RMS.
- stox 15y agoI'm feeling old. 25 years of compilation with gcc.