Hi,
I just had a crazy idea of developing an application in GNU Pascal - yet it struck me: if I distribute in source code, how many (in %) sites will be able to install it?
This lead me to another thought: when will GPC be stable enough to include it in main gcc-3.0.x (or later) distribution? (I guess this might help the compiler be more wide spread, as happened wiht g77 ...)
mirsad
-- This message has been made up using recycled ideas and language constructs. No plant or animal has been injured in process of making this message.
Mirsad Todorovac wrote:
I just had a crazy idea of developing an application in GNU Pascal - yet it struck me: if I distribute in source code, how many (in %) sites will be able to install it?
Any who choose to install a current GPC version. ;-) Realistically, it'll be sufficient if one user on each platform builds a binary and makes that available.
This lead me to another thought: when will GPC be stable enough to include it in main gcc-3.0.x (or later) distribution? (I guess this might help the compiler be more wide spread, as happened wiht g77 ...)
Yes, probably. Though it's not really a question of stability. In fact, I suppose a 3.0 based GPC will at first be less stable than a 2.8.1 or 2.95.x based one because a few new problems will surely appear and will have to be found and fixed first.
The main difference between the GCC versions from our POV is mainly a number of changed interfaces which means a lot of work to adopt GPC (and without too much immediate effect on the quality of GPC).
That's why it's not been on the top of our priorities, but of course, it will be done in due cuorse ...
Frank
On Tue, 13 Nov 2001, Frank Heckenbach wrote:
Mirsad Todorovac wrote:
This lead me to another thought: when will GPC be stable enough to include it in main gcc-3.0.x (or later) distribution? (I guess this might help the compiler be more wide spread, as happened wiht g77 ...)
Yes, probably. Though it's not really a question of stability. In fact, I suppose a 3.0 based GPC will at first be less stable than a 2.8.1 or 2.95.x based one because a few new problems will surely appear and will have to be found and fixed first.
The main difference between the GCC versions from our POV is mainly a number of changed interfaces which means a lot of work to adopt GPC (and without too much immediate effect on the quality of GPC).
That's why it's not been on the top of our priorities, but of course, it will be done in due cuorse ...
Just as well. All the distrubutions listed on www.distrowatch.com have some variation of gcc-2.9 something as the default compiler. On the Slackware site, gcc-3.0.2 is included in the current tree "for testing purposes only". The latest glibc, 2.2.4, says you can't use gcc-3 to compile it. (If you override it you get a "not supported" message). So if GPC were included today you'd be right in the middle of GCC vs GCC problems.
Russ
Russell Whitaker wrote:
Just as well. All the distrubutions listed on www.distrowatch.com have some variation of gcc-2.9 something as the default compiler. On the Slackware site, gcc-3.0.2 is included in the current tree "for testing purposes only". The latest glibc, 2.2.4, says you can't use gcc-3 to compile it. (If you override it you get a "not supported" message). So if GPC were included today you'd be right in the middle of GCC vs GCC problems.
I think we'll always be in such problems, anyway. ;-) However, the worst that can really happen to someone who wants to install it, would be having to download a GCC source tarball (a little less than 10 MB for the core version IIRC) and to install two more binaries (maybe 4 MB with debug info). Quite frankly, it's not *that* much nowadays (and the GCC version will have to be updated far less than once a year, most likely also in the future) ...
Frank
-
Frank Heckenbach -
Mirsad Todorovac -
Russell Whitaker