![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Needs to mention how egcs forked from gcc, then proved so much more vital that it was eventually 'blessed' as the official gcc. - David Gerard 00:39, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)
The link for "doxygen's output for trees" is broken. Can anybody find a current link for that? user:sander123
Phrase In computing, GCC is the GNU Compiler Collection. came from disambiguation page and is not useful the article.
Phrase GNU Compiler Collection (GCC) is a free programming tool is much more better. - Kenny sh
I put in a new lead, a little more focussed on GCC specifically; GCC does not include any assemblers or linkers, the previous lead left that impression. I don't say "computing", but I do say "software" and "programming", which should set context sufficiently for anybody over the age of 12, plus the all-important "compiler" link which is how you find out what it is exactly. Stan 13:35, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I forgot to add it to the comments but i reverted the page due to vandalism
Shouldn't the screenshot actually show the output of gcc? Now it just shows the terminal emulator Rxvt.
I saw this on this page: "writing the compiler in X, then hand-compiling it from source (most likely in a non-optimized way) and running that on the code to get an optimized compiler. This method is used for GCC," and I would like to know more. Perhaps this GCC article could provide more information? —This unsigned comment was added by Uranther ( talk • contribs) .
The new screenshot has been removed twice, with a comment saying that it does not work and that the image doesn't exist. It *does* work for me. *Yes*, I did clear my cache and loaded the page freshly. How can this be? Especially, this link points to the version where the new screenshot has been put in place again and it *does* work for me there. this link points to the image page and it *does* work for me. Finally, this link points to the image itself, which *does* work for me. So what am I missing? Maybe it's being linked to in an incorrect manner, so that it works under some circumstance, but not others. Please help.
Should the middle end paragraph be moved into its own section (like front end and back end)? -- 69.61.169.217 18:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Just to let you know. The purpose of selecting an article is both to point readers to the article and to highlight it to potential contributors. It will remain on the portal for a week or so. The previous selected article was Samba. Gronky 21:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Cross compiler says:
How true is this? Should this be said on Cross compiler? Should it be said here? -- Sy / (talk) 15:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Len Tower's article has been deleted, restored, and is listed for deletion again. Can anyone please confirm that he not only was working on the conversion from Pastel to C, but provided "notable" contributions? Thank you. LossIsNotMore 15:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I came to this page to see what architectures were supported by the compiler. As an idea, it'd be good to see the supposted architecutres broken up by processor class. E.g. 8-bit microcontrollers, DSP Chips, etc.
Just a suggestion :)
I don't think that GCC should redirect to this article. Firstly because that was not and is not the original or primary meaning of the acronym, and secondly as a consequence this reeks a bit of revisionism. The C Compiler is of much more encyclopedic interest anyway, as it was/is of critical importance to the GNU/Linux platform. The rest of the Collection is mostly of academic interest only. Would anyone object to splitting the article to deal with the C Compiler and the Compiler Collection as separate entities? Though since GNU decided to supersede the original meaning, that could cause confusion since there is only one current and official meaning. That being the case, perhaps the title of the article should be purposely left in abbreviated form as "GCC"? This seems to be the best compromise between the historical and prevalent meaning vs the official meaning. VanishingUser 01:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Aren't there any? I believe on the article about the XCode, which uses gcc, it's mentioned that gcc is slower than CodeWarrior's compiler. -- M1ss1ontomars2k4 23:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
The list of hardware in the "Architectures" section should be removed. Wikipedia is not the place to list such information, it is surely listed on other websites such as gcc.gnu.org. Wikipedia should just say "runs on 41 architectures" and provide a reference with a link to the gcc.gnu.org page. -- Gronky 07:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Our history section is a bit anaemic right now, the EGCS article doesn't seem to be getting any more detailed, and per the #egcs section above it's possible that it's not going to do so (due to lack of hard sources). We should probably merge it in here, because when it comes down to it EGCS is little more than a footnote in the history of GCC now. Chris Cunningham ( talk) 11:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
It's been almost two months now since the proposal. I think there has been sufficient time for consideration and sufficient consensus to merge and it really doesn't seem controversial. Lets just do it. — Becksguy ( talk) 09:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
That was fast. Nice. — Becksguy ( talk) 13:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
What do you think about expanding the history section with a list of dates and major revision numbers? I read plenty of text that says as of gcc x.zz feature y has been available. It would be nice to know approximately what date that version of gcc became available. Daniel.Cardenas ( talk) 20:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Compared to close to 100% of open source projects, gcc performs VERY poorly. Most open source projects are among the best in their field. gcc, unfortunately is among the worst in its field. Yes, it can produce code for almost every platform. But it creates the worst code on almost any of those platforms than any other compilers. It can compile. That is pretty much all that can be said about gcc. Intel's compilers and Microsoft's compilers, in most cases, create code that is SO MUCH FASTER.
Most open source projects are "close to optimal". gcc, despite the long time that it has been worked on, is just dismal. Even more so from an open source kind of view.
Apart from the "open source" label, I don't think any self-respecting *n*x user would want to use gcc. It's portable, sure. It also creates the worst code possible on most of the platforms it has been ported to. Compared to other compilers on those platforms. 68.200.98.166 ( talk) 03:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
We currently cite http://people.redhat.com/dnovillo/pub/tree-ssa/doc/html/, a dead link, for the (uncontroversial) sentence:
Out of interest in the topic, I turned to the Internet Archive and found http://web.archive.org/web/20070702090751/people.redhat.com/dnovillo/pub/tree-ssa/papers/. Should we use one of these PDFs as the source for that sentence?
(I see that Mr Novillo's 2004 GCC summit paper "Design and Implementation of Tree SSA" says "Another source of compile time slowness are the presence of RTL optimizations that have been superseded by Tree SSA." I haven't read the slides.) Cheers, CWC 10:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
While doing a tidy-up of the External links section, I decided to add year of publication to the list of books under Further reading. It turns out we've been linking to rather outdated versions of the GCC documents:
So I replaced those links with the most recent versions of the "Using GCC" and "GCC internals" manuals"
Was there some reason for sticking with the old links? Does anyone have any objections to, or comments about, these changes?
In addition, I removed the The Jem Report: More on OpenBSD's New Compiler (changed to PDF because HTML link is dead) which is already used as a reference. Cheers, CWC 12:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
If gcc is GPL software, does that mean anything you build with it is automatically GPL'd (i.e. free as in free beer)? I doubt the GPL can extend itself this way, but I'm not sure why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.4.3.75 ( talk) 19:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Cc1 redirects to this article. What does Cc1 mean? -- Abdull ( talk) 12:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
A link to LINFO was dead ( http://www.bellevuelinux.org/gcc.html), it seems to have been moved to http://www.linfo.org/gcc.html. I checked with waybackmachine ( http://web.archive.org/web/20070607182402/http://www.bellevuelinux.org/gcc.html) and the new page seems identical. I took the liberty to update it. -- Sahedin ( talk) 21:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I forgot to add that the main page for bellevuelinux.org contains a link named LINFO that takes you to to linfo.org. So the link should be ok. -- Sahedin ( talk) 22:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
The history section uses the word "blessed" in a context where it does not belong ('the FSF ... "blessed" EGCS as the official version of GCC'), which suggests some bias on the part of the author. Perhaps a word like "adopted" would suit the context better, but as a relatively inexperienced Wikipedia editor I thought I should bring it up here first. Also, some of the paragraphs in History have a lot of citations, and others have none at all. I'd be happy to help find citations for the content there, but again I thought I should bring it up here first in case someone would rather rewrite those sections instead, since they contain ambiguous and unhelpful phrases like "the difficulty in getting work accepted by the official GCC project was greatly frustrating for many". - 120.16.156.3 ( talk) 10:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
decltype
(
talk)
10:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Needs to mention how egcs forked from gcc, then proved so much more vital that it was eventually 'blessed' as the official gcc. - David Gerard 00:39, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)
The link for "doxygen's output for trees" is broken. Can anybody find a current link for that? user:sander123
Phrase In computing, GCC is the GNU Compiler Collection. came from disambiguation page and is not useful the article.
Phrase GNU Compiler Collection (GCC) is a free programming tool is much more better. - Kenny sh
I put in a new lead, a little more focussed on GCC specifically; GCC does not include any assemblers or linkers, the previous lead left that impression. I don't say "computing", but I do say "software" and "programming", which should set context sufficiently for anybody over the age of 12, plus the all-important "compiler" link which is how you find out what it is exactly. Stan 13:35, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I forgot to add it to the comments but i reverted the page due to vandalism
Shouldn't the screenshot actually show the output of gcc? Now it just shows the terminal emulator Rxvt.
I saw this on this page: "writing the compiler in X, then hand-compiling it from source (most likely in a non-optimized way) and running that on the code to get an optimized compiler. This method is used for GCC," and I would like to know more. Perhaps this GCC article could provide more information? —This unsigned comment was added by Uranther ( talk • contribs) .
The new screenshot has been removed twice, with a comment saying that it does not work and that the image doesn't exist. It *does* work for me. *Yes*, I did clear my cache and loaded the page freshly. How can this be? Especially, this link points to the version where the new screenshot has been put in place again and it *does* work for me there. this link points to the image page and it *does* work for me. Finally, this link points to the image itself, which *does* work for me. So what am I missing? Maybe it's being linked to in an incorrect manner, so that it works under some circumstance, but not others. Please help.
Should the middle end paragraph be moved into its own section (like front end and back end)? -- 69.61.169.217 18:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Just to let you know. The purpose of selecting an article is both to point readers to the article and to highlight it to potential contributors. It will remain on the portal for a week or so. The previous selected article was Samba. Gronky 21:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Cross compiler says:
How true is this? Should this be said on Cross compiler? Should it be said here? -- Sy / (talk) 15:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Len Tower's article has been deleted, restored, and is listed for deletion again. Can anyone please confirm that he not only was working on the conversion from Pastel to C, but provided "notable" contributions? Thank you. LossIsNotMore 15:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I came to this page to see what architectures were supported by the compiler. As an idea, it'd be good to see the supposted architecutres broken up by processor class. E.g. 8-bit microcontrollers, DSP Chips, etc.
Just a suggestion :)
I don't think that GCC should redirect to this article. Firstly because that was not and is not the original or primary meaning of the acronym, and secondly as a consequence this reeks a bit of revisionism. The C Compiler is of much more encyclopedic interest anyway, as it was/is of critical importance to the GNU/Linux platform. The rest of the Collection is mostly of academic interest only. Would anyone object to splitting the article to deal with the C Compiler and the Compiler Collection as separate entities? Though since GNU decided to supersede the original meaning, that could cause confusion since there is only one current and official meaning. That being the case, perhaps the title of the article should be purposely left in abbreviated form as "GCC"? This seems to be the best compromise between the historical and prevalent meaning vs the official meaning. VanishingUser 01:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Aren't there any? I believe on the article about the XCode, which uses gcc, it's mentioned that gcc is slower than CodeWarrior's compiler. -- M1ss1ontomars2k4 23:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
The list of hardware in the "Architectures" section should be removed. Wikipedia is not the place to list such information, it is surely listed on other websites such as gcc.gnu.org. Wikipedia should just say "runs on 41 architectures" and provide a reference with a link to the gcc.gnu.org page. -- Gronky 07:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Our history section is a bit anaemic right now, the EGCS article doesn't seem to be getting any more detailed, and per the #egcs section above it's possible that it's not going to do so (due to lack of hard sources). We should probably merge it in here, because when it comes down to it EGCS is little more than a footnote in the history of GCC now. Chris Cunningham ( talk) 11:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
It's been almost two months now since the proposal. I think there has been sufficient time for consideration and sufficient consensus to merge and it really doesn't seem controversial. Lets just do it. — Becksguy ( talk) 09:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
That was fast. Nice. — Becksguy ( talk) 13:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
What do you think about expanding the history section with a list of dates and major revision numbers? I read plenty of text that says as of gcc x.zz feature y has been available. It would be nice to know approximately what date that version of gcc became available. Daniel.Cardenas ( talk) 20:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Compared to close to 100% of open source projects, gcc performs VERY poorly. Most open source projects are among the best in their field. gcc, unfortunately is among the worst in its field. Yes, it can produce code for almost every platform. But it creates the worst code on almost any of those platforms than any other compilers. It can compile. That is pretty much all that can be said about gcc. Intel's compilers and Microsoft's compilers, in most cases, create code that is SO MUCH FASTER.
Most open source projects are "close to optimal". gcc, despite the long time that it has been worked on, is just dismal. Even more so from an open source kind of view.
Apart from the "open source" label, I don't think any self-respecting *n*x user would want to use gcc. It's portable, sure. It also creates the worst code possible on most of the platforms it has been ported to. Compared to other compilers on those platforms. 68.200.98.166 ( talk) 03:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
We currently cite http://people.redhat.com/dnovillo/pub/tree-ssa/doc/html/, a dead link, for the (uncontroversial) sentence:
Out of interest in the topic, I turned to the Internet Archive and found http://web.archive.org/web/20070702090751/people.redhat.com/dnovillo/pub/tree-ssa/papers/. Should we use one of these PDFs as the source for that sentence?
(I see that Mr Novillo's 2004 GCC summit paper "Design and Implementation of Tree SSA" says "Another source of compile time slowness are the presence of RTL optimizations that have been superseded by Tree SSA." I haven't read the slides.) Cheers, CWC 10:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
While doing a tidy-up of the External links section, I decided to add year of publication to the list of books under Further reading. It turns out we've been linking to rather outdated versions of the GCC documents:
So I replaced those links with the most recent versions of the "Using GCC" and "GCC internals" manuals"
Was there some reason for sticking with the old links? Does anyone have any objections to, or comments about, these changes?
In addition, I removed the The Jem Report: More on OpenBSD's New Compiler (changed to PDF because HTML link is dead) which is already used as a reference. Cheers, CWC 12:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
If gcc is GPL software, does that mean anything you build with it is automatically GPL'd (i.e. free as in free beer)? I doubt the GPL can extend itself this way, but I'm not sure why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.4.3.75 ( talk) 19:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Cc1 redirects to this article. What does Cc1 mean? -- Abdull ( talk) 12:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
A link to LINFO was dead ( http://www.bellevuelinux.org/gcc.html), it seems to have been moved to http://www.linfo.org/gcc.html. I checked with waybackmachine ( http://web.archive.org/web/20070607182402/http://www.bellevuelinux.org/gcc.html) and the new page seems identical. I took the liberty to update it. -- Sahedin ( talk) 21:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I forgot to add that the main page for bellevuelinux.org contains a link named LINFO that takes you to to linfo.org. So the link should be ok. -- Sahedin ( talk) 22:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
The history section uses the word "blessed" in a context where it does not belong ('the FSF ... "blessed" EGCS as the official version of GCC'), which suggests some bias on the part of the author. Perhaps a word like "adopted" would suit the context better, but as a relatively inexperienced Wikipedia editor I thought I should bring it up here first. Also, some of the paragraphs in History have a lot of citations, and others have none at all. I'd be happy to help find citations for the content there, but again I thought I should bring it up here first in case someone would rather rewrite those sections instead, since they contain ambiguous and unhelpful phrases like "the difficulty in getting work accepted by the official GCC project was greatly frustrating for many". - 120.16.156.3 ( talk) 10:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
decltype
(
talk)
10:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)