Why GCC 4?
alan at linuxholdings.co.za
Tue Mar 14 21:51:01 UTC 2006
On Tuesday 14 March 2006 02:28, Julio Biason wrote:
> On 3/13/06, Matthew R. Dempsky <mrd at alkemio.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 12:47:33AM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > > I've wondered about this for a while. How come Ubuntu is
> > > compiled with gcc 4? Is there a specific technical advantage to
> > > doing this?
> > Is there a specific technical advantage not to?
Well that's what I am trying to establish. As a serious hard-core geek
type, I'm usually willing to test drive new stuff. But upgrading two
things gives me the heebie-jeebies: gcc and it's tool-chain, and
> Hm... 3.x has years of field evaluation and bug fixing? :)
> As far as I know, 4.x is more standards-compliant, which is a good
> thing. Several programs can't compile against 4.x, due some way
> optimizations are done now (where it seems is the greatest point of
> 4.x, although isn't fully explored yet).
I seem to recall (but can;t find the link right now) that one of the
annoying things about gcc3.4 was the hassle of getting new language
front ends into it. The architecture could have been better, and IIRC
Objective C++ was especially tricky.
Good info on this is hard to come by it seems, but I did find
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/What will be in 4.0
Also the C++ language specs are somewhat of a moving target, large and
So overall it seems that v4 is the natural progression of things and
recent architectural changes to the compiler warrant a version bump
to 4 instead of 3.5
alan at linuxholdings dot co dot za
+27 82, double three seven, one nine three five
More information about the ubuntu-users