Snapshot gcc-4.8-20121118 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.8-20121118/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.8 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk
On 18 November 2012 18:25, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 08:06:08AM -1000, NightStrike wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 8:03 AM, Basile Starynkevitch
>> wrote:
>> > I really think that GCC need some form of garbage collector.
> [...]
>>
>> What's wrong with std::shared_ptr
On 18 November 2012 18:03, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
> Regarding PCH [pre-compiled header], I think that it is related to PPH
> [pre-processed headers]
>
> I don't understand yet if PPH is abandoned, or just post-poned. I was
> believing it was a very mature experimental branch.
See http://gcc.g
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 08:06:08AM -1000, NightStrike wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 8:03 AM, Basile Starynkevitch
> wrote:
> > I really think that GCC need some form of garbage collector.
[...]
>
> What's wrong with std::shared_ptr?
How does it deal with complex circular references that every
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 8:03 AM, Basile Starynkevitch
wrote:
> I really think that GCC need some form of garbage collector.
> If it is Ggc+gengtype (to be improved), or Boehm GC, or even
> some other GC (for instance both
> http://starynkevitch.net/Basile/qishintro.html and
> http://gcc.gnu.org/vi
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 11:25:55AM -0500, Diego Novillo wrote:
> I agree with the analysis of Uday and Basile. [...]
>
> However, let's discuss this topic in some other thread, please. I'd
> like to take this thread back to the original topic: what do we do
> with GC and PCH?
I really think tha
I agree with the analysis of Uday and Basile. In my view, competition
from Clang and LLVM is probably the best thing that could've happened
to a compiler that was in danger of becoming fat, lazy and complacent.
Simplifying the code base for new contributors and increased
maintainability are the ma
On 18/11/2012, at 7:50 AM, Alexander Ivchenko wrote:
> You are right, we are talking about the same things. The only open
> question I see is regarding:
>
> In other cases we can safely assume
> that the executable will be created and
> in such case it would be a good idea to use -fPI
