On Don, 31 Mai 2001, Jonathan Belson wrote:

> > No. gcc 3.0 does not change much, except being a lot stricter in parsing. 
> >From the gcc web page gcc 3.0 will have a new preprocessor and a new
> ABI. 

Yes, thats true. the new ABI has advantages (being binary compatible to Java 
mangling in example is one of them), however what do you gain from a 
rewritten Preprocessor, except its a bit faster and more standard compliant 
(i.e. it breaks old code) ? ;-)

> I heard from a gcc developer at redhat the linker was going to
> be rewritten (it's supposedly a bit of a mess ATM) - maybe that's scheduled
> for later.

the linker, being part of binutils, is not part of GCC. 

> So does gcc support precompiled headers?  I can't see anything in the
> manual about them.

There is a development of it, yes. its not yet in CVS as far as I know and 
its scheduled for gcc 3.1. 

> > Its catching up. You should use gcc CVS before accusing them in such a 
> > general way ;-)
> I prefer to use stable release versions.  I'm not denying gcc is getting
> better, but the competition isn't standing still either. 

Well, then better first compare. There are not too many "free" compilers 
implementing C++ so you have not much choice. 


Dirk
 
>> Visit http://master.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-devel#unsub to unsubscribe <<