RISC OS News on Drobe
RISC OS Search
containing
"Contrary to some RISC OS news sites who don't bother to check the facts before they run a story..."
Welcome back guest  |  Login  |  Register Sunday 20th July 
Login

drobe.co.uk
About Drobe
RISC OS News
Drobe Features
Alternatives
Bookmarks
Riscos.org.uk
Auctions
Events (shows)
AU issues
Tech Material
Wallpaper
Movies
File archives
SH eBooks
FAQs
Changelog

Interact
Forums
Online chat
Your webspace
BBC Emu(games!)
User gallery
RSS news &
comments
Submit news
Contact us

Quick Links
Open directory
Nutshells
ANS archives
ArcSite
RO Repository
Announce
RISCOS Ltd.
Castle

NTK
The Inquirer
The Register
OSNews
Slashdot
Google

Alternatives
NetBSD
ARM Linux
Iyonix Linux

Found Apps
 RISC OS Software !Avalanche
 RISC OS Software !Darts
 RISC OS Software !CFuncAnal
 RISC OS Software !TranTIFF+
 RISC OS Software !Dustbin
 RISC OS Software !NurseW
 RISC OS Software !Tally
 RISC OS Software !VideoLog
 RISC OS Software !USBKick
 RISC OS Software !Spr2Jpeg
Recent users
flibble is a RISC OS User flibble
ritecartdev is a RISC OS User ritecartdev
tduell is a RISC OS User tduell
barti is a RISC OS User barti
bavison is a RISC OS User bavison
jmb is a RISC OS User jmb
rjek is a RISC OS User rjek
Fuzzy is a RISC OS User Fuzzy
chrisj is a RISC OS User chrisj
hubersn is a RISC OS User hubersn


Why donate?

Serving: 15GB
Fuel: caffeine
0 users online
24 guests
177 active accts 24329 comments

Webstats

 
RISC OS News Article
GCC 3.3.3pre1 released
Published: 21st Mar 2004, 17:58:34GMT  Source: drobe.co.uk
By Chris Williams
Page 1 of 1
Biggest official release in two years
GCC logoA public pre-release version of GCC 3.3.3 is now available from the GCC for RISC OS website. The project considers this release to be "stable enough for general use but may contain a few rough interface edges that need polishing". It's also described as the biggest, official update to RISC OS GCC in two years.

On this weekend's release, project manager Nick Burrett commented: "Though this is a pre-release, the compiler toolset should be considered stable."

The GCC package includes a C/C++ and Fortran 77 compiler as well as an assembler, a linker and the standard run-time libraries, plus Libio, Libstdc++ and a pre-release of UnixLib 4.0. Also available is the GCCSDK, which is useful for cross compiling RISC OS executables on Linux, BSD and other Unix-like systems. GCC 3.3.3pre1 requires at least 8M of memory to work and by default will generate 32bit compatible code. Users who want to follow the progress of the project or submit feedback are encouraged to join the project's mailing list.

The weekend's release of GCC for RISC OS brings the project in line with the mainstream current release of GCC, the popular compiler package developed by the GNU. As well as the changes made to the mainstream version, the RISC OS version also now includes threading support (pthreads), emulation of /dev/random and /dev/zero, improved C99 standard compatibility, ELF support in as and various other updates to UnixLib and other components.

Links
GCC for RISC OS website - official pre-built packages, CVS details, GCCSDK, etc.
Unofficial GCC builds from riscos.info - ELF executable generating GCC for RISC OS and a 32bit GCC 2.95.4
GNU's GCC website - changes and features new to 3.3.3

Related articles
GCC 3.4.6 in bug fix release
Unofficial ELF GCC updated
New version of GCC for RISC OS released

This article has been linked to, or is available in the following formats:  
 
 
 
 
 
[Printable] [Digg this] [Blog search]


ksattic(valued user) (+1.5)
21/3/04 6:30PM
GCC is easily one of the most important ongoing projects for RISC OS because so much other software just wouldn't exist without it. Thanks are due to the developers for all their kind work.
pipalya (+1.5)
Face
21/3/04 9:55PM
What implications has this for already
existing software?
mrchocky(valued user) (-1.0)
Face
21/3/04 10:30PM
In reply to pip:
I don't know what you mean. Implications of GCC 3.3 on software? That they're able to be compiled with a newer compiler?
wuerthne(good user) 
Face
21/3/04 10:46PM
In reply to pipalya:

I think you misunderstood what ksattic meant: The existence of GCC, a free compiler, enables software authors who could not afford the commercial C compiler to write software, so because of that, as ksattic wrote, much other software would not exist without it. A new version of the compiler has no implications for existing software, how could it?
Martin
rmacf(good user) 
22/3/04 12:33AM
As a non-techie I wondered the same thing as Pipalya. Does this upgrade make it easier to re-write existing programmes, to make them compatible with 32bit systems, any easier?

BTW could you contact me please Pipalya?
simo(good user) (+1.5)
Face
22/3/04 6:30AM
Nice to see 32-Bit and ELF in a "standard" gcc3 version, rather than three seperate releases.
mrchocky(valued user) (+1.5)
Face
22/3/04 8:54AM
rmacf: the situation is precisely as Martin has said. There's nothing made "easier" or anything new you can do, it's just a newer version of compiler (although that's significant enough by itself). I don't know why you'd suggest anything would have to be re-written.

In reply to simo:
You've oversimplified the matter. There was only one "release" of GCC 3.3 - previous versions were simply developmental versions.

As for 32-bit, it's been pretty crucial, and there would have been a lot of problems had a 32-bit version of 2.95 not been made.

The GCC 3.3 release doesn't contain any more ELF support than the previous 32-bit 2.95.4 GCC - i.e, just the assembler. The full ELF toolchain I did (which was an experimental version, and not a "release"), was done to demonstrate that full ELF support on RISC OS is possible. It's however, of limited usefulness until it can interact with AOF object files.

It's not uncommon on Linux systems to have 2 or 3 versions of GCC installed.
mrtd(valued user) 
22/3/04 8:55AM
macf: As a non-techie I wondered the same thing as Pipalya. Does this upgrade make it easier to re-write existing programmes, to make them compatible with 32bit systems, any easier?

No, but it adds some features that may be useful to programmers writing new programs. In some cases it will make porting programs from other platforms easier where the new compiler features have been used. It does nothing for converting 26 bit ARM programs to 32 bit.
JGZimmerle (-1.0)
Face
22/3/04 9:43AM
And it should provide a nice speed-up of programs wich are recompiled with the new GCC, because the new ARM backend in GCC 3.x generates much faster code.
bernie(bad user / troll) 
22/3/04 10:45AM
I am a non-techie too, but I seem to remember a number of project/ports that can't be done with old versions of (RISC OS) GCC because of (lack of) threading. Am I right?
em2ac(good user) 
22/3/04 1:24PM
"There also exist front ends for other languages, such as Objective C, Ada 9X, Modula-3, Pascal, Cobol and Java, however these have not been ported to run on RISC OS."

Damed shame, I like using Java!

But mostly Good Work :D (Y)!
mrchocky(valued user) (+0.5)
Face
22/3/04 1:43PM
Right, I've just run some benchmarks using nbench with the two compilers.

The result? There seems to be a very marginal speed increase in the 3.3 compiler. No doubt there are some cases where the code is much better, but those might be pretty limited.

The output from GCC for ARM is actually pretty good, so I would be surprised at overall substantial improvement. Having said that, the output from optimising for XScale or StrongARM may well show marked improvement.

Moral of the story: please check your technical claims.
jonix(good user) (+1.5)
Face
22/3/04 3:48PM
've played a bit with the pthreads support in Unixlib and it's coming on very nicely. A big thanks to all involved.
imj(good user)www (-1.5)
Face
22/3/04 6:34PM
FWIW, Chocky, you also didn't provide any "evidence or justification" for your statement that the speed improvements were only marginal.
piemmm(valued user) (-1.5)
Face
22/3/04 7:13PM
Interest rates can go down as well as up ;-)
NoMercy (+1.5)
23/3/04 12:22AM
Wow, that's almost freaky, I picked out an old acorn user issue, which had a few news articles about the GCC effort and ROL looking into aquiring the C++ compiler from ARM, and then I flick onto Drobe the next day, and wooo new GCC version... ok my life is shallow and without meaning, but woo new GCC version!
adrianl(good user)www (+1.5)
23/3/04 1:54AM
"StrongARM binaries will be faster on an XScale than ARM6 ones"
If that means that the compiler knows about load-use delays and tries to schedule instructions between an LDR Rd,[] and any use of Rd then yes.
IIRC unexecuted LDM/STMs are also cost more than 1 cycle on SA so knowing that can also improve performance on the XScale.

Of course, that's knowledge of the SA/XScale's performance characteristics rather than usage of new instructions, but I think that's by far the greatest benefit to be had. Some small improvement may also be gained be use of halfword loads/stores which are new to post-ARM6 CPUs but most of the other new instructions are not really useful to a compiler.
quatermass (-1.5)
Face
23/3/04 11:41AM
Hmmm, the image of two cats on both sides of a fence comes to mind.....
philipnet (-1.5)
Face
23/3/04 11:56AM
bored now.
not_ginger_matt (-1.5)
23/3/04 12:02PM
If you take a few moments out from attempting to beat down JGZimmerle and making yourself look really rather childish, you'll notice that you've also often used a "poor choice of words". I believe there's some moral about people in glass houses throwing stones that you might like to look up.
On one hand you say that "It's certainly true that GCC 3.3 will generally generate faster code" and then after running some benchmarks you still say "No doubt there are some cases where the code is much better". Of course, later on you can't resist another mindless attack on JGZimmerle and rant on how it's impossible to say that the compiler is ever "much faster". Not content with this you say that this is "plainly clear to everyone" even though it didn't appear to be clear to you prior to that post.
Of course, no personal feud (as this appears to be what we are witnessing) would be complete with out at least a small helping of hypocrisy. So, all I ask is "Please don't go round making these statements without justification", and when you run some tests to demonstrate that your current stance is correct then at least provide the results or the compiler options you used to get them. Simply saying that there is "a very marginal speed increase" negates your "Scientific method" and really doesn't really help anyone out.
Feel free to consider this a "Peer Review".
mripley(good user) (-1.5)
23/3/04 12:05PM
It's all very defensive, why ? is there some toe treading going on here that we're missing. Or is it simply a case of "I'm always right all the time and I'll argue forever until you all agree with me".

When my kids behave like this, its no more sweeties time ;-)
9 comment(s) are below your moderation threshold. Login to view them.
  Use the forum for more comments on this article

Top Tip

Forums

You can discuss subjects of interest and ask questions in our forums area.
 
Headline news
Wakefield 2008 show photos
28th Apr 2008

Wakefield 2008 show live news
26th Apr 2008

Who would want an A9home PDA?
24th Apr 2008

RISC OS 6.10 available to Select subscribers
24th Apr 2008

Gallery photo
Older news
Animation and typing applications really released
24th Apr 2008

Wakefield 2008 show preview
22nd Apr 2008

R-Comp unveils new PDF authoring package
22nd Apr 2008

NetSurf bags GBP10K investment from Google
21st Apr 2008

Apple Mac VirtualRiscPC leaves beta
20th Apr 2008

Blu-ray disc burn breakthrough
14th Apr 2008

PDF import support for ArtWorks
13th Apr 2008

Wakefield 2008 show theatre line-up revealed
13th Apr 2008

Animation software collection falls into R-Comp's hands
9th Apr 2008

Features
A9home: two years on
4th Dec 2007

A9home DIY laptop: first pictures
1st Dec 2007

Software hosted by Drobe: Your guide
5th Nov 2007

 

Top | Design and concept © Fudgecake Design, 1999 - 2001. Content © The Drobe Team, 1999 - 2008. 
Click here for more information and terms and conditions.