It's a bit of a push to call what the Norcroft C++ compiler complies
"C++" ... it was old at the time.
Hijacking the thread a bit (sorry) .. I guess for ELF dynamically linked
stuff GCC 10 would be fine?
Cheers
Chris
On 17/04/2021 20:14, Terje Slettebø wrote:
Hi Lee.
Thanks for your fast reply. I figured that it was due to language and
library changes, and for sure, C++20 has a lot of changes, such as
modules, that you mention.
Maybe a more workable solution could be to target a GCC version with
C++17, as to my knowledge, C++ doesn't introduce features up to that
version that affects the source code organisation.
I don't have any experience with building GCC, so I think I'll settle
with the current version, and it appears to have a quite decent
implementation of C++11.
I appreciate all the work you guys are putting into this project, as
it gives people like me a chance to use _real_ C++, as opposed to the
pre-standardisation version of C++ of the Norcroft compiler.
Terje
------ Original Message ------
From: "Lee Noar" <lee.n...@sky.com>
To: gcc@gccsdk.riscos.info
Sent: 17/04/2021 20:53:41
Subject: Re: [gccsdk] Any chance of a newer GCC version than 4.7.4?
On 17/04/2021 18:34, Terje Slettebø wrote:
Hi all.
I'm new to this list, and apologies if this has been asked before (I
checked the archive). I notice that the current version of GCC for
RISC OS, while built relatively recently, is based on a version of
GCC from 2014 (https://gcc.gnu.org/releases.html
<https://gcc.gnu.org/releases.html>).
Is there any reason why we're basing it on such an old version, and
is there any chance of getting a later one, preferably based on the
latest GCC version?
I'm developing C++ applications, and a lot has changed since 2014,
and even then, the GCC version only included a partial
implementation of C++11. Thus, we're missing several major revisions
of the C++ standard: C++11, C++14, C++17 and C++20
If you don't mind building it yourself, then GCC 10.2.0 is in the
autobuilder at autobuilder/develop/gcc. Unfortunately, it's not
quite ready for general release as I've found the static archives
for libgcc and libstdc++ contain PIC code and the hack I used in
GCC 4.7.4 to get around that doesn't seem to be working.
Also, it's not yet a suitable replacement for GCC 4.7.4 because
it doesn't support module code or libscl, both of which will
require a multilib build which is another complication I
haven't got round to yet.
However, if you don't mind dynamic linking in the meantime,
then it is more than usable. I've used it extensively to compile
around 50 libraries including webkit which is quite demanding in its
use of modern C++ features. There is also a native RISC OS version.
The issue then is how to distribute the libraries, as we don't
have an official download yet. We can't really offer the libraries
without the compiler and, well, I need to get those static archives
fixed.
I see that GCC 10.3.0 has been released and if GCC 11 isn't
forthcoming, then I may upgrade it to that soon.
Lee.
_______________________________________________
GCCSDK mailing list gcc@gccsdk.riscos.info
Bugzilla: http://www.riscos.info/bugzilla/index.cgi
List Info: http://www.riscos.info/mailman/listinfo/gcc
Main Page: http://www.riscos.info/index.php/GCCSDK
_______________________________________________
GCCSDK mailing list gcc@gccsdk.riscos.info
Bugzilla: http://www.riscos.info/bugzilla/index.cgi
List Info: http://www.riscos.info/mailman/listinfo/gcc
Main Page: http://www.riscos.info/index.php/GCCSDK
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
_______________________________________________
GCCSDK mailing list gcc@gccsdk.riscos.info
Bugzilla: http://www.riscos.info/bugzilla/index.cgi
List Info: http://www.riscos.info/mailman/listinfo/gcc
Main Page: http://www.riscos.info/index.php/GCCSDK
