"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.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
--
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
No comments:
Post a Comment