login
Search
Joseph Myers announced the availability of GCC 4.2.4 saying, "GCC 4.2.4 is a bug-fix release, containing fixes for regressions in GCC 4.2.3 relative to previous GCC releases." He adds, "as always, a vast number of people contributed to this GCC release -- far too many to thank individually!"
GCC is the GNU Compiler Collection which includes C, C++, Objective-C, Fortran, Java, and Ada compilers. Download GCC 4.2.4 from your nearest gcc.gnu.org mirror.
From: Joseph S. Myers Subject: GCC 4.2.4 Released Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 15:13:16 +0000 (UTC) (11:13 EDT) GCC 4.2.4 has been released. GCC 4.2.4 is a bug-fix release, containing fixes for regressions in GCC 4.2.3 relative to previous GCC releases. This release is available from the FTP servers listed at: http://www.gnu.org/order/ftp.html Please do not contact me directly regarding questions or comments about this release. Instead, use the resources available from http://gcc.gnu.org. As always, a vast number of people contributed to this GCC release -- far too many to thank individually! -- Joseph S. Myers joseph@codesourcery.com
C99
And when, exactly, will this bastard fully support the C99 specification?
http://gcc.gnu.org/c99status.html
Maybe the same day you stop
Maybe the same day you stop complaining and start to contribute to the project?
pwned :).
pwned :).
can't shine shit so why try
can't shine shit so why try
Hmmm...
And yet you posted that steamer. Perhaps that explains your lack of eloquence and editing?
--
Program Intellivision and play Space Patrol!
What exactly do you want to
What exactly do you want to use that GCC is missing? As far as I can see on http://gcc.gnu.org/c99status.html, the C99 support is fairly complete.
Should be full complete
Considering that C99 was released in 99, thats almost a decade ago, it should be full complete support for C99.
It's got everything anyone cares about
Apparently, since it's been 10 years and no one has cared enough about the missing features to implement them, these are parts of the standard that aren't that important. This is free software which means no one is going to spend their time working on features they don't care about just to achieve some arbitrary checklist.
Are any of these features that you actually need, or are you just whinging for lack of anything better to do this weekend?
Features
Well, VLAs are broken and I don't know in what ways. For example, GCC warns about
int foo (int a[*]);not being fully implemented. Great, but in what ways?In general, I'd like to write C as specified by the standard, knowing that it will work.
You kind of proved the
You kind of proved the grandparent's point with your example. VLA's are basically just syntactic sugar for stuff you can already do. While it would be nice if gcc was fully C99 compliant, it isn't fully compliant because people just don't care enough about some parts of the standard.
VLAs less useful
Actually, VLAs are a great example of a poor choice in the standard, IMO. Alloca(), which had been available in GCC for many years before C99, is not only easier to use and understand but it's provably more powerful than VLAs, in very useful ways.
Compliance
Both of you just cough up excuses. C is a programming language. It is defined by a standard. ISO 9899:1999 to be specific. This is the document you follow when you want to write standard C. GCC does not fully implement this standard, hence I cannot trust GCC to interpret my C code the way it should.
At any rate, I guess most people write GNU C these days.
Hmmm
C99 is so important, because, you know, there never was a standard C before C99. Ever. So one can't possibly write standard C without 100% full support of ISO 9899:1999, because, every C program is a C99 program that uses every feature of C99. In fact, there were no C programs before 1999.
And monkeys might fly out my butt.
--
Program Intellivision and play Space Patrol!
Standards
I never figured you for a troll, but anyway ...
you can write ANSI C or GNU C or any other C you want. What I'm trying to say is that I like many of the features that C99 provides (most of which are implemented), and I'd like to just read the specification and use them without having to double-check that the compiler actually implements the feature correctly.
The fact that they have an updated C99 status page tells me that people are in fact interested in getting there. Perhaps not enough, though. It's "only" been 10 years ;-)
I was just trying to make a point
In the posts above, you (or someone) has conflated C and C99 extensively, and then pointed to GCC's incomplete C99 support implying that that makes it impossible to write and compile standard C programs using GCC. That's simply untrue. It does make writing C99 programs that use the missing features difficult or impossible, but that's not the vast majority of software. Others have pointed out that many of C99's features aren't all that pressing as compared to their complexity or their value. VLAs are one of them.
Since most interesting platforms have alloca() anyway, the pressure to implement VLAs just isn't there I'd reckon. The other missing support also seems to be at the fringes. The really important and obviously useful bits, such as named initializers for struct fields, etc. are implemented.
Trashing GCC as a worthless C compiler, though, because the whole of C99 isn't implemented isn't terribly useful, helpful, or even accurate.
--
Program Intellivision and play Space Patrol!
Implying
I wasn't implying that, and of course that's not true. I think you're reading too much into what was said. Perhaps it's because I'm talking about GCC and not Microsoft's C compiler *shrugs*
So they are, and I use them. I also tend to think VLAs are a pretty nice feature, and I use that as well, even though its specification isn't implemented correctly (most of it is anyway).
I don't see anyone doing that. I see me complaining about the lack of a fully implemented C99 specification and pointing out (by request) a specific feature that wasn't working. It's not the end of the world that it's not fully implemented, but it would indeed be nice IMHO.
If you don't trust GCC to
If you don't trust GCC to compile your C code, then do it by hand or just use another compiler. Now, show off.