Gcc Alternatives

Similar projects and alternatives to gcc

NOTE: The number of mentions on this list indicates mentions on common posts plus user suggested alternatives. Hence, a higher number means a better gcc alternative or higher similarity.

gcc discussion

Log in or Post with

gcc reviews and mentions

Posts with mentions or reviews of gcc. We have used some of these posts to build our list of alternatives and similar projects. The last one was on 2024-06-10.
  • gcc VS lambda-mountain - a user suggested alternative
    2 projects | 10 Jun 2024
  • Project Stage 1: Preparation(part-2)
    1 project | dev.to | 3 Jun 2024
    GCC github-mirror GCC Documentation GCC Internals Mannual Installing GCC
  • Qt and C++ Trivial Relocation (Part 1)
    3 projects | news.ycombinator.com | 7 May 2024
    As far as I know, libstdc++'s representation has two advantages:

    First, it simplifies the implementation of `s.data()`, because you hold a pointer that invariably points to the first character of the data. The pointer-less version needs to do a branch there. Compare libstdc++ [1] to libc++ [2].

    [1]: https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/blob/065dddc/libstdc++-v3/...

    [2]: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/1a96179/libcxx/inc...

    Basically libstdc++ is paying an extra 8 bytes of storage, and losing trivial relocatability, in exchange for one fewer branch every time you access the string's characters. I imagine that the performance impact of that extra branch is tiny, and massively confounded in practice by unrelated factors that are clearly on libc++'s side (e.g. libc++'s SSO buffer is 7 bytes bigger, despite libc++'s string object itself being smaller). But it's there.

    The second advantage is that libstdc++ already did it that way, and to change it would be an ABI break; so now they're stuck with it. I mean, obviously that's not an "advantage" in the intuitive sense; but it's functionally equivalent to an advantage, in that it's a very strong technical answer to the question "Why doesn't libstdc++ just switch to doing it libc++'s way?"

  • GCC 14.1 Release
    2 projects | news.ycombinator.com | 7 May 2024
    Upd: searching in the github mirror by the commit hash from the issue, found that https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/commit/1e3312a25a7b34d6e3f... is in fact in the 'releases/gcc-14.1.0' tag.

    Even weirder that this one got swept under the changelog rug, it's a pretty major issue.

  • C++ Safety, in Context
    8 projects | news.ycombinator.com | 12 Mar 2024
    > It's true, this was a CVE in Rust and not a CVE in C++, but only because C++ doesn't regard the issue as a problem at all. The problem definitely exists in C++, but it's not acknowledged as a problem, let alone fixed.

    Can you find a link that substantiates your claim? You're throwing out some heavy accusations here that don't seem to match reality at all.

    Case in point, this was fixed in both major C++ libraries:

    https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/commit/ebf6175464768983a2d...

    https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/4f67a909902d8ab9...

    So what C++ community refused to regard this as an issue and refused to fix it? Where is your supporting evidence for your claims?

  • Std: Clamp generates less efficient assembly than std:min(max,std:max(min,v))
    4 projects | news.ycombinator.com | 16 Jan 2024
  • Converting the Kernel to C++
    3 projects | news.ycombinator.com | 10 Jan 2024
    Somewhat related: In 2020 gcc bumped the requirement for bootstrapping to be a C++11 compiler [0]. Would have been fun to see the kernel finally adopt C++14 as the author suggested.

    I don't think that Linus will allow this since he just commented that he will allow rust in drivers and major subsystems [1].

    I do found it pretty funny that even Linus is also not writing any rust code, but is reading rust code.

    I would have hoped see more answers or see something in here from actual kernel developers.

    0: https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/commit/5329b59a2e13dabbe20...

  • Understanding Objective-C by transpiling it to C++
    4 projects | news.ycombinator.com | 2 Dec 2023
    > They’re saying that a lot of the restrictions makes things much harder than other languages. Hence the general problem rust has where a lot of trivial tasks in other languages are extremely challenging.

    Like what? So far the discussion has revolved around rewriting a linked list, which people generally shouldn't ever need to do because it's included in the standard lib for most languages. And it's a decidedly nontrivial task to do as well as the standard lib when you don't sacrifice runtime overhead to be able to handwave object lifecycle management.

    - C++: https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/blob/master/libstdc%2B%2B-...

    - Rust: https://doc.rust-lang.org/beta/src/alloc/collections/linked_...

    > No need to get defensive, no one is arguing that rust doesn’t do a lot of things well.

    That's literally what bsaul is arguing in another comment. :)

    > You’re talking up getting a safe implementation in C, but what matters is “can I get the same level of safety with less complexity in any language”, and the answer is yes: Java and c# implementations of a thread safe linked list are trivial.

    Less perceived complexity. In Java and C# you're delegating the responsibility of lifecycle management to garbage collectors. For small to medium scale web apps, the added complexity will be under the hood and you won't have to worry about it. For extreme use cases, the behavior and overhead of the garbage collector does became relevant.

    If you factor in the code for the garbage collector that Java and C# depend on, the code complexity will tilt dramatically in favor of C++ or Rust.

    However, it's going to be non-idiomatic to rewrite a garbage collector in Java or C# like it is to rewrite a linked list in Rust. If we consider the languages as they're actually used, rather than an academic scenario which mostly crops up when people expect the language to behave like C or Java, the comparison is a lot more favorable than you're framing it as.

    > If I wanted I could do it in c++ though the complexity would be more than c# and Java it would be easier than rust.

    You can certainly write a thread-safe linked list in C++, but then the enforcement of any assumptions you made about using it will be a manual burden on the user. This isn't just a design problem you can solve with more code - C++ is incapable of expressing the same restrictions as Rust, because doing so would break compatibility with C++ code and the language constructs needed to do so don't exist.

    So it's somewhat apples and oranges here. Yes, you may have provided your team with a linked list, but it will either

  • Committing to Rust for Kernel Code
    5 projects | news.ycombinator.com | 23 Nov 2023
    GCC is also written in C++, and has had C++ deps since 2013:

    https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/blob/master/gcc/c/c-parser...

  • Spitbol 360: an implementation of SNOBOL4 for IBM 360 compatible computers
    2 projects | news.ycombinator.com | 11 Nov 2023
  • A note from our sponsor - SaaSHub
    www.saashub.com | 20 Jun 2024
    SaaSHub helps you find the best software and product alternatives Learn more →

Stats

Basic gcc repo stats
85
8,875
10.0
7 days ago

Sponsored
Power Real-Time Data Analytics at Scale
Get real-time insights from all types of time series data with InfluxDB. Ingest, query, and analyze billions of data points in real-time with unbounded cardinality.
www.influxdata.com