GCC 4.1 Released

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!"

Home depot

[Stevyn]

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.

Masters of understatement

[ReformedExCon]

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.

GCC is the Key to Open Source's Success

[slashfun]

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.

A big thanks to the GCC team.

[rice_burners_suck]

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:That's good.

[jsight]

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:I'm thinking of contributing to GCC...

[larry bagina]

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.

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

[jbn-o]

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.

C and Objective-C

[SpinJaunt]

* 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.

LOL.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

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

[ReformedExCon]

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.

[jbn-o]

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.

Re:Let me know when it stops sucking

[Pr0xY]

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.

Re:RMS wrote GCC to pursue software freedom.

[Anonymous Coward]

So it's wrong to sneak software Freedom in through a back door?

Open Source Software is software that is available also in source code format. Under this grouping you can have everything from Free Software (GPL), freer software (BSD), not-so-free software (MPL), and wholly un-free software (MS Shared Source). However, the key ingredient here is that the source is available. Hence "Open Source".

Now you can go ahead and say, well Free Software gives you a bunch of other rights and obligations beyond what the other OSS types give you, but that does not in any way diminish the fact that its source is available, making it "Open Source".

In fact, gcc is more than just RMS' "Free Software tool", it is actually a "Free Software multi-computer-language source code compiler for multiple CPU instruction sets." You can go about as specific as you like, but at some point the rest of us are rolling ours eyes and waiting for the tirade to end so we can go back to referring to it as an Open Source tool.

As far as your contention that history is somehow violated because the "Open Source" community ignores the Freedom aspects of the Free Software movement, you are incorrect there as well. You will find that in most cases proponents of OSS are also strong believers in FS. The primary difference is that they see the benefits of Freedom as the primary reasons to choose OSS, whereas Free Software zealots can't see the forest for the trees. In order to realize the benefits of Open Source software, Software Freedom is a necessity. Here's a quote from opensource.org:

The basic idea behind open source is very simple: When programmers can read, redistribute, and modify the source code for a piece of software, the software evolves.

None of this is possible without some degree of Software Freedom, and OSS proponents recognize this inherently. What they also recognize is that bitching about definitions and the assignment of credit is pointless and doesn't motivate anyone except the lunatic fringes.

Re:What was wrong with Azureus?

[digidave]

Not free as in beer, Free as in speech.

Re:Home depot

[hackstraw]

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.

Yes, gcc is a great compiler, but it is not as good as a commercial compiler like Intel's, or PathScale's, or the Portland groups' or another compiler that is designed for a specific platorm.

I use it by default on my Itanium, Alpha, x86, and SPARC systems, but when performance matters, I go for one that is better optimized.

The most grateful aspect of gcc to the world is that Linux would be impossible without it. And that in itself is enough. I learned C from using gcc, and like I said, I use it daily, but it is not the best performing compiler on the block. It is not uncommon to get up to 100% speedup using an optimized compiler for the platform over gcc, but for portability and familiarity of the compiler across platforms (which is its purpose), it is damn good. Especially when many vendors do not provide a C/C++ compiler for their OS without extra charge.

Thank you GNU and the gcc people.

Re:RMS wrote GCC to pursue software freedom.

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you get a prize for being a martyr or something for sucking RMS' dick?

His revolution is done. It won. It continues to win, despite his constant screwing with the definitions of "Free".

Take a look at the damage he is now trying to do to 'his' movement with the updates to the GPL. That's not software Freedom, it's just as much about lock-in as any proprietary license. If he continues down this path, touting Software Freedom when he means nothing of the kind, his movement will be eclipsed by other more balanced and sensible movements. In some ways, this has already happened with the non-religious OSI taking the limelight away from the FSF.

The philosophical stuff has its place. And luckily for it, it has already won over the majority of people. In fact, it has been so successful that many people now believe that something without a tangible physical presence has no value, and they are actively circumventing the law in order to "share".

Make no mistake, Free Software, indeed the whole idea of Information Freedom has succeeded. What remains are business issues, legal issues, and the rest of the day-to-day issues involved with any usage paradigm. RMS and the FSF have outlived their purpose, and prove that with every release of a new and more onerous "Free" license such as the restrictive GPL4 or the wholly un-Free GFDL.

But, if you gotta suck RMS' dick, Slashdot is probably the best place to do it.

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

[EvilSmile]

There is a reason why RMS insists it is "Free software" and not "open source software". There is an ethical aspect of the philosophy of free software which is cast aside when you say "open source software". He mentioned this explicitly on many occasions.

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

[top_down]

You sound like a Jehovah's Witness citing the bible.

Here is a list of contributors to GCC: http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Contributors.htm l [gnu.org]

I would be quite annoyed with all this talk about initial authorship if I had just worked my butt of to get the current release out of the door.

More people than you imagine ...

[hummassa]

> 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.
More people than you imagine do care.
I know I do, and I know lots of others do, too.

NOT a subset

[CarpetShark]

You can't philosophically be a subset of something you don't philosophically agree with. Free Software is Free Software. Open Source came later, and if anything, is a watered-down version of Free Software.

Bogus Blathering

[ChaoticCoyote]

As many have pointed out, GCC 4.1 is actually several months away from release. Slashdot "editors" might want to learn about a concept called "fact checking." I'm disturbed by the amount of GCC bashing in this list. I've never met a perfect compiler, and GCC is far superior to many commercial tools I've used. It provides professional-quality C, C++, Objective-C, Fortran 95 (almost), Java, and Ada compilers for dozens of platforms; the code generation is imprefect, but then again so is most of the code GCC is required to compile! The vile lack of appreciation for GCC simply astounds me -- it is the foundation of Free Software. And it is a fine piece of work that is constantly growing and evolving -- though not as fast as Slashdot's headlines might suggest... ;)

Re:GCC is important, but what about progress in C+

[Anonymous Coward]

RTTI, Garbage collection, a GC-based class library... sounds like
you'd rather be programming in Java. So why don't you?
I use C++ for high performance real time software. I don't
want GC or libraries which depend on it. If I were writing
software for a bank or something, I'd use Java - it's easier,
and already has all the tools and libraries. Why screw around
with C++ if you don't need performance? And if you do need
performance, why are you using garbage collection and other
stuff which will just turn your C++ compiler into a poor man's
java compiler? I don't get it... use the right tool for the job!

-- Tristan

Re:NOT a subset

[Anonymous Coward]

Fields are just watered-down rings, I say!

Re:Buffer overflows a non-issue.

[dr2chase]

Your claims assume that we are infinitely smart and work infinitely fast. Lacking infinite resources, working in a language where half my vulnerability is taken care of lets me double the attention I direct towards the others. If there are three sorts of vulnerabilitity, and buffer overflow accounts for about half, then it is also the most common problem, though not the majority problem. Any well-informed security-conscious programmer would be aware of these numbers, and my "attitude" will not change their focus in the least (which is to say, your claim is crap, please back it up with numbers). We have known about the danger posed by buffer overflow since 1988 when the Morris Worm hit; all buffer overflows that have occurred in software written since then demonstrate the inherent stupidity of sufficiently many programmers to make networked life over-interesting.

Or, put another way, if half the security holes are a non-issue, then the other half cannot be more of an issue, hence we have no security problem at all (check my math, please).

Perhaps you can see why I prefer to use programs written in safe languages.