[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [MiNT] 030-version of gcc
Frank Naumann wrote:
Would you compile 3.x version of GCC, with the help of Patrice
Mandin (who compiled a 68000 version). The 2.95.3 is not up to date !
You oversee some important points. The 3.x series of the gcc is much
slower and require much more memory than the 2.95.3.
You may be right, but only for the compilation. The produced executables
are quicker and smaller. This is the significant progress, don't you
think so ?
Also the C++
ABI changed incompatible, you must rebuild and replace all C++
libraries at once.
Is there many C++ programs specifically written for ATARI machines ?
I only know one, that is "Nethack". The other are adapted from other
platforms and should be rewritten.
I don't practice C++, but for C there's no problem of portability
between 2.9x to 3.x. "math.h" should only be adapted a bit for
the inline code. Anyway, if C++ (not C) programs have problems,
it should be corrected, because it is a problem of non portability.
They are not cleanly written. Don't you think so ?
I'm not sure that native ATARI users will be happy with
I personally have a Hades 060, I'm an ATARI developer with no
such problems. All ATARI machines are not suitable for developments.
People who don't want GCC 3.x can still use 2.9x. But you can't
limitate the majority of developers because of a minority. For
the users, they should be pleased, because GCC 3.x is better.
3.x produces better code, and can be better optimized. That's
a strong advantage !
Btw. Patrice just used the mint target files for the 2.95.3.
Yes, Patrice made a target for m68k-atari-mint, and he adapted POV
3.5 entirely, that is known to be a portable C++ raytracing
I personally recompiled POV 3.1g, written in C, with GCC 3.3,
without any problems.
I think that there's no major obstacle to update GCC to 3.x.
Do you think of a peculiar significant obstacle ?
-- Dr. François LE COAT
Author of Eureka 2.12 (2D Graph Describer, 3D Modeller)