Printable View
I'd like to point out that as of version 4.2.0, GCC now supports SRA -- scalar replacement of aggregates. I've been doing some preliminary testing, and seen improvements of up to 30% speed increase for template algorithms that heavily instantiate various simple objects.
Generic programming just got a lot more efficient.
Yet another reason for me to harp my favorite points:
1) Strive to create constructors that have no side effects
2) Hold all data by value whenever possible
Too bad my GCC hates me. :(
(damn you bleeding edge! damn you!)Code:[austin@continuum ~]$ gcc --version | head -1
gcc (GCC) 4.2.1
[austin@continuum ~]$ cat > test.c
int main() { return 42; }
[austin@continuum ~]$ gcc test.c
/usr/lib/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/4.2.1/ld: unrecognized option '--hash-style=both'
/usr/lib/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/4.2.1/ld: use the --help option for usage information
collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
[austin@continuum ~]$
gcc3 to the rescue, though.
Seriously though, quite an impressive increase in efficiency I'd say. Mind posting a couple of benchmarks?
Mad_guy, perhaps you need to update your binutils?
This is what I'm figuring, however, the entire system is up to date.Quote:
Originally Posted by CornedBee
I've BEEN up to date for a while, I'm fairly religious about not letting updates pile ontop of me.
Would that make much difference to this thread - http://cboard.cprogramming.com/showthread.php?t=88491 if anyone besides myself can remember.
Looks like your GCC build and binutils are out of sync. This can happen even if you have up-to-date binutils, if you installed a GCC binary that was compiled against some other version of binutils. Did you compile 4.2.1 yourself, or install from binary?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad_guy
You can work around it for now by using an older GCC for the linking step. You can still compile with 4.2.1.
Best thing, though, is probably to compile your own 4.2.1 build. The GCC build process has become much easier to handle lately. It can take a while, though.
I'm still getting my grips on the behavior of GCC 4.2.x so I couldn't really say for certain. Best thing is to try it and see!Quote:
Originally Posted by twomers
Believe me I would but it's slightly awkward at the moment.
I installed from binary however, the problem was solved as GCC was calling out to a version of ld that was out of date (how ld got in that particular location, I have no idea.) It simply involved deleting that version of ld in that directory. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by brewbuck