Re: [gccsdk] Any chance of a newer GCC version than 4.7.4?

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.noar@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