20-Apr-2024 03:46 GMT.		 UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Anonymous, there are 33 items in your selection
[Files] GCC 3.2 for AmigaOS at GeekGadgetsANN.lu
Posted on 21-Apr-2003 12:58 GMT by Bill Hoggett33 comments
View flat
View list
Just in case anyone has missed this little news item, GCC 3.2.2 for 68k is available on the GeekGadgets archives, in the /alpha/gcc directory.
GCC 3.2 for AmigaOS at GeekGadgets : Comment 1 of 33ANN.lu
Posted by Bill Hoggett on 21-Apr-2003 11:00 GMT
Yes, I realise this is not "news" as it is several weeks old now, but since I didn't see any announcement about it here I thought it deserves a mention.
GCC 3.2 for AmigaOS at GeekGadgets : Comment 2 of 33ANN.lu
Posted by Gregg on 21-Apr-2003 11:48 GMT
In reply to Comment 1 (Bill Hoggett):
So, Bill, are you announcing this, or are you announcing the original non-announcement? And was that original non-announcement not yours, or not someone else's - or not?

Just want to be clear on this announcement business...

Gregg
GCC 3.2 for AmigaOS at GeekGadgets : Comment 3 of 33ANN.lu
Posted by Bill Hoggett on 21-Apr-2003 12:06 GMT
In reply to Comment 2 (Gregg):
@Gregg

:)

I won't be posting this news again next week, that much I can guarantee.
GCC 3.2 for AmigaOS at GeekGadgets : Comment 4 of 33ANN.lu
Posted by Leo on 21-Apr-2003 12:44 GMT
Does GCC 3.2 comes with bug-free libnix ? ;)
GCC 3.2 for AmigaOS at GeekGadgets : Comment 5 of 33ANN.lu
Posted by Martin Blom on 21-Apr-2003 12:57 GMT
In reply to Comment 4 (Leo):
There is no such thing as bug free software, but ... What bugs?
GCC 3.2 for AmigaOS at GeekGadgets : Comment 6 of 33ANN.lu
Posted by Phill on 21-Apr-2003 14:56 GMT
In reply to Comment 1 (Bill Hoggett):
Does it produce better or worse 68k code than the older versions?
GCC 3.2 for AmigaOS at GeekGadgets : Comment 7 of 33ANN.lu
Posted by spotUP on 21-Apr-2003 15:28 GMT
In reply to Comment 6 (Phill):
Who is making GCC-WOS? Will there be a GCC-WOS based on GCC 3.2?
Or... Can I make GCC-68k produce WOS executeables somehow?
The latest GCC-WOS is oooold!
GCC 3.2 for AmigaOS at GeekGadgets : Comment 8 of 33ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 21-Apr-2003 16:19 GMT
bug in sprintf()
fseek()
...
GCC 3.2 for AmigaOS at GeekGadgets : Comment 9 of 33ANN.lu
Posted by Xeyes (untrusted user) on 21-Apr-2003 17:57 GMT
wOO+!

aros port soon? :)
GCC 3.2 for AmigaOS at GeekGadgets : Comment 10 of 33ANN.lu
Posted by KenH on 21-Apr-2003 20:34 GMT
In reply to Comment 3 (Bill Hoggett):
Awwww. But I want to see how it progresses! ;)


>I won't be posting this news again next week, that much I can guarantee.
GCC 3.2 for AmigaOS at GeekGadgets : Comment 11 of 33ANN.lu
Posted by Martin Blom on 22-Apr-2003 04:59 GMT
In reply to Comment 8 (Anonymous):
That didn't help.
GCC 3.2 for AmigaOS at GeekGadgets : Comment 12 of 33ANN.lu
Posted by StAn on 22-Apr-2003 05:24 GMT
I think that gcc 2.95.3 didn't handle long long in libnix too. Oh well, libnix sucks. A gcc without libnix and ixemul would be great.

I don't understand why the porter didn't post a news about gcc 3.2 when he did it. Maybe because it's just full of bugs ?

I'm fed up with gcc bugs and crashes... If GCC 3.2 is better that would be great news.

A PPC version would be better, though.
GCC 3.2 for AmigaOS at GeekGadgets : Comment 13 of 33ANN.lu
Posted by DaveP on 22-Apr-2003 07:43 GMT
In reply to Comment 12 (StAn):
You don't have to use ixemul or libnix. Nothing stopping you from writing your
own "wrapper" layer either.
GCC 3.2 for AmigaOS at GeekGadgets : Comment 14 of 33ANN.lu
Posted by Martin Blom on 22-Apr-2003 08:37 GMT
In reply to Comment 12 (StAn):
We obviously don't have the same needs. ixemul is God-sent when porting Unix software, and I use libnix for all my other development.

Works for me.
GCC 3.2 for AmigaOS at GeekGadgets : Comment 15 of 33ANN.lu
Posted by Phill on 22-Apr-2003 10:03 GMT
In reply to Comment 14 (Martin Blom):
libnix is great for porting unix software too, although it does depend on the project. I try to avoid ixemul like the plague, if you need a library that is larger than your executable then you're moving into Microsoft country. It's all down to what does the job.

When writing AmigaOS specific code I wouldn't use fopen/fseek etc anyway.

Phill
GCC 3.2 for AmigaOS at GeekGadgets : Comment 16 of 33ANN.lu
Posted by DaveP on 22-Apr-2003 11:05 GMT
In reply to Comment 15 (Phill):
Dynamic libraries should be larger than executables in the world of reusable
software components. Whether all members of libraries are made resident
or only made resident through use of a lazy algorithm on demand is another matter.

I don't understand this obsession that some Amiga users have with library sizes. It
isn't a Microsoft thing, its a basic Software Engineering thing. Write once, reuse
everywhere. By reference vs by copy.
GCC 3.2 for AmigaOS at GeekGadgets : Comment 17 of 33ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 22-Apr-2003 13:05 GMT
In reply to Comment 8 (Anonymous):
Atleast sprintf() is availlable in both amiga.lib and standard c-lib version which do you men ?
GCC 3.2 for AmigaOS at GeekGadgets : Comment 18 of 33ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 22-Apr-2003 13:08 GMT
In reply to Comment 12 (StAn):
It's better use libnix if you write Amiga-software anyway.. It might be perfect but it sure is better for that.
GCC 3.2 for AmigaOS at GeekGadgets : Comment 19 of 33ANN.lu
Posted by Leo on 22-Apr-2003 15:44 GMT
In reply to Comment 15 (Phill):
Almost any programs I wanted to port were using fseek() and were crashing/bad working because of these bugs...

(ScummVM is just one example... This program has been ported to numerous other OSs using GCC without any problems)
GCC 3.2 for AmigaOS at GeekGadgets : Comment 20 of 33ANN.lu
Posted by Artur Pietruk on 22-Apr-2003 18:46 GMT
In reply to Comment 12 (StAn):
> I don't understand why the porter didn't post a news about
> gcc 3.2 when he did it.

Maybe he did it on gg-mailing list, but you are not subsribed to that list?

> Maybe because it's just full of bugs ?

As you called him - "porter", he did a great job... Maybe try to use the port, and submit bug-report to gg-list if you find any bug? It would be both more creative and helpful.
BR,
--
--- Artur Pietruk
GCC 3.2 for AmigaOS at GeekGadgets : Comment 21 of 33ANN.lu
Posted by StAn on 23-Apr-2003 10:45 GMT
In reply to Comment 13 (DaveP):
Well, AFAIK it's either ixemul or libnix.
I don't know out to easily remove both of them... (and I have other things to do preventing me from spending too much time on this)
I'd be glad to see a doc about how to remove ixemul and libnix so as to get a simple compiler to build AmigaOS programs, because the unix stuff which GCC is ridden with prevents me from using bsdsocket.library easily, for example.

Luckily, VBCC does the job fine most of the time.
GCC 3.2 for AmigaOS at GeekGadgets : Comment 22 of 33ANN.lu
Posted by StAn on 23-Apr-2003 10:46 GMT
In reply to Comment 14 (Martin Blom):
Sure, ixemul and libnix are great for porting unix software... But I don't want them for Amiga programs..
BTW What's the difference between ixemul and libnix ? They are both for unix porting, aren't they ?
GCC 3.2 for AmigaOS at GeekGadgets : Comment 23 of 33ANN.lu
Posted by Paul Hill on 23-Apr-2003 11:02 GMT
In reply to Comment 22 (StAn):
No, libnix is just a C library. For writing native Amiga applications.
GCC 3.2 for AmigaOS at GeekGadgets : Comment 24 of 33ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 23-Apr-2003 11:05 GMT
In reply to Comment 22 (StAn):
You really should read libnix.guide it describes what libnix is. In short libnix is ANSI-C compliant library which is better suited for AmigaOS specific development, thus not using any Unix specific routines.
GCC 3.2 for AmigaOS at GeekGadgets : Comment 25 of 33ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 23-Apr-2003 11:12 GMT
In reply to Comment 21 (StAn):
If you want to use Amiga shared libraries like bsdsocket.library then you really should try libnix :)
GCC 3.2 for AmigaOS at GeekGadgets : Comment 26 of 33ANN.lu
Posted by Phill on 23-Apr-2003 12:56 GMT
In reply to Comment 16 (DaveP):
"I don't understand this obsession that some Amiga users have with library sizes."

It was more usability to start with. If you just have a little cli program & you don't want to write an installer for it then ixemul is a large overhead in terms of documentation etc. So I converted to libnix & not only did the problem go away, but the executable got smaller.

"Dynamic libraries should be larger than executables in the world of reusable
software components"

Thats fine if the dynamic libraries are common. If every 10k executable you install needs another 25mb of libraries, or just different versions than you already have. Then you haven't gained anything.

"It isn't a Microsoft thing, its a basic Software Engineering thing. Write once, reuse everywhere. By reference vs by copy."

Code reuse is good, but not at the expense of every other requirement. Microsoft has given the world an army of programmers, who shouldn't be allowed within ten feet of a computer. But hey, they can sure create large installation disks.

Phill
GCC 3.2 for AmigaOS at GeekGadgets : Comment 27 of 33ANN.lu
Posted by Phill on 23-Apr-2003 12:58 GMT
In reply to Comment 21 (StAn):
IIRC you pass the -noixemul flag to stop it requiring ixemul. AFAIK this also makes it use libnix instead. I believe it is in the documentation, it's been a while since I read it.

Phill
GCC 3.2 for AmigaOS at GeekGadgets : Comment 28 of 33ANN.lu
Posted by Darth_X on 23-Apr-2003 16:44 GMT
In reply to Comment 11 (Martin Blom):
Hey Martin Blom, are you still involved in working on AHI or have you moved on to bigger and more prosperous things? ;)
GCC 3.2 for AmigaOS at GeekGadgets : Comment 29 of 33ANN.lu
Posted by Martin Blom on 23-Apr-2003 22:06 GMT
In reply to Comment 28 (Darth_X):
Didn't you see the AHI 4 AROS post? :-)
GCC 3.2 for AmigaOS at GeekGadgets : Comment 30 of 33ANN.lu
Posted by Kjetil on 24-Apr-2003 05:01 GMT
In reply to Comment 26 (Phill):
/*
Thats fine if the dynamic libraries are common. If every 10k executable you install needs another 25mb of libraries, or just different versions than you already have. Then you haven't gained anything.
*/
/*
"It isn't a Microsoft thing, its a basic Software Engineering thing. Write once, reuse everywhere. By reference vs by copy."
*/

Just like to add to last comment or make one thing absolutely clear if you have 10k program and need 25mb of library’s, and you have 10 more 10k programs they number of MB used for library’s is not 25mb * 10 = 250mb, they are reused so you probably get down to about the same amount 25mb,

How ever if you compile you program with modules(/static library’s) (.o) (.a) files then you can add like that, modules are compiled with in your code, so you and up with large executable files.
GCC 3.2 for AmigaOS at GeekGadgets : Comment 31 of 33ANN.lu
Posted by Crumb // AAT on 24-Apr-2003 11:25 GMT
There is any easy installer? and what about an IDE?
I'm used to StormC and I'd like to have a similar installer/IDE for GCC...
GCC 3.2 for AmigaOS at GeekGadgets : Comment 32 of 33ANN.lu
Posted by StAn on 24-Apr-2003 14:23 GMT
In reply to Comment 23 (Paul Hill):
Well, here libnix contains plenty of non ANSI/ISO stuff.
GCC 3.2 for AmigaOS at GeekGadgets : Comment 33 of 33ANN.lu
Posted by StAn on 24-Apr-2003 14:26 GMT
In reply to Comment 25 (Anonymous):
I'm always compiling with libnix and not ixemul (I've changed the specs file so that the default is libnix), but there are clashes between GCC includes and MiamiSDK includes. I think I've tried with AmiTCP SDK includes too.
That's why I'd like a "clean" ANSI/ISO gcc.

Anyway... don't bother flaming me, thanks.
Anonymous, there are 33 items in your selection
Back to Top