HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
gcc-mirror
gcc
C++2011–2026
gcc-mirror / gcc

gcc

Discover this repository through its Hacker News conversations.

Explore on GitHubRead Hacker News discussions
108Distinct people
122Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
11.4KGitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

A public description has not been verified.

Where it is used

The source check is incomplete. Verified examples will appear here.

What people are saying

No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

Mentioned in the same Hacker News threads. That is not proof they are substitutes.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 8–Nov 15 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/15/2026, 10:56:20 AM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by year122 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2011-12-14 05:37:23 UTC to 2026-09-27 21:56:56 UTC.

0510152011-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2012-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments20112012-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2013-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2013-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2014-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2014-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 14 mentions; 1 submissions, 13 comments2015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 4 mentions; 0 submissions, 4 comments2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 8 mentions; 1 submissions, 7 comments2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 8 mentions; 0 submissions, 8 comments2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 9 mentions; 1 submissions, 8 comments20182019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 6 mentions; 1 submissions, 5 comments2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 10 mentions; 1 submissions, 9 comments2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 14 mentions; 1 submissions, 13 comments2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 12 mentions; 0 submissions, 12 comments2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 8 mentions; 0 submissions, 8 comments2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 12 mentions; 1 submissions, 11 comments2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 12 mentions; 0 submissions, 12 comments2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2027-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 3 mentions; 0 submissions, 3 comments. Incomplete calendar period.2026*

* An incomplete calendar period is marked with an outlined bar. Its count is not directly comparable with a full period.

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
20112011-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2012-01-01 00:00:00 UTC101
20122012-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2013-01-01 00:00:00 UTC101
20132013-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2014-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20142014-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC14113
20152015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC404
20162016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC817
20172017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC808
20182018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC918
20192019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC615
20202020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC1019
20212021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC14113
20222022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC12012
20232023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC808
20242024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC12111
20252025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC12012
2026 (partial)2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2027-01-01 00:00:00 UTC303

What Hacker News says

8 sources
reubenmorais·Jul 7, 2016
I looked at that, and eventually found a reference to the Launchpad bug in this 500KB patch[0]. It says: + * Fixes included in the 4.2.4 upstream release (compared to 4.2.3-3ubuntu7): + - Fix LP: #256797, wrong-code on ia32, taken from the gcc-4_2-branch. Which makes it sound like the problem was in GCC, not the Ubuntu package. I was under the impression that the bug was caused by an Ubuntu-specific patch, from dikaiosune's comment. Am I missing something? Edit: Ah, so the fix was added in 4.2.4-1ubuntu1, not 4.2.4-1ubuntu3. Which narrows the actual source changes to something inside this other 500KB patch[1]. From here I looked at the upstream changes using GitHub compare[2] (warning, big page). I ran a one liner in the JS console to expand all the "…" buttons next to the commit messages so I could search for relevant text,
Read the rest
which lead me to this commit[3], which seems to be the actual code changes to fix that particular bug. That finally lead me to the bug in GCC's bug tracker[4]. I don't know if I have just been very lucky with the open source projects I've collaborated with, but this journey to find where a bug was actually fixed seems completely insane to me. Is all this info passed down from maintainer to maintainer just via folklore? Crazy. Oh, I almost forgot about what I actually wanted to know. This looks like a GCC bug that wasn't caused by Ubuntu specific patches, so I don't know what dikaiosune wanted to say. [0] https://launchpadlibrarian.net/18364478/gcc-4.2_4.2.4-1ubunt... [1] https://launchpadlibrarian.net/17472542/gcc-4.2_4.2.3-2ubunt... [2] https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/compare/gcc-4_2_3-release.... [3] https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/commit/80cacf54c3d410d5552... [4] https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35163
In Announcing Rust 1.10
jguegant·Feb 5, 2016
As I explained in a commentary: As far as I understand gcc implementation. In a pseudo-code it would be: Mutex mutexes[SIZE_OF_POOL]; int hash(void* p) { ... } std::shared_ptr<t> atomic_load( const std::shared_ptr<t>* p ) { int r = hash(p); lock(mutextes[r % SIZE_OF_POOL]); return *p; // Safe copy of p. } All the other atomic operations (store, etc) use the same lock pool, so it should be fine for the copy! If you want to take a look at gcc's implementation: https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/blob/bd3f0a53c07086e978ea4... https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/blob/bd3f0a53c07086e978ea4...
In An introduction to C++'s variadic templates: a thread-safe multi-type map

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.