gcc 2.7.2p vs. gcc 2.6.3

gcc 2.7.2p vs. gcc 2.6.3

Post by Ron Echever » Fri, 19 Jul 1996 04:00:00



I've installed the pgcc port and i've used it sparingly; while i know
that replacing the system binaries with new stuff is usually not a
good idea, i still wondered as to whether, since pgcc claims to be
optimized for the Pentium chip, would there be any significant
improvement if it were made the system default C compiler?

rone
--

 ==============================================================================
       No, i don't know what i'm doing, and if i did, i wouldn't tell you.

 
 
 

gcc 2.7.2p vs. gcc 2.6.3

Post by John S. Dyso » Sat, 20 Jul 1996 04:00:00



> I've installed the pgcc port and i've used it sparingly; while i know
> that replacing the system binaries with new stuff is usually not a
> good idea, i still wondered as to whether, since pgcc claims to be
> optimized for the Pentium chip, would there be any significant
> improvement if it were made the system default C compiler?

Be careful, it appears to coredump once in a while (much more often
than the more stable versions.)  I can compile the kernel with it
and it works okay (it miscompiles a file or two sometimes :-)).  It
appears that on integer code, generally the improvement is fairly
small.

John

 
 
 

gcc 2.7.2p vs. gcc 2.6.3

Post by Andreas Kle » Fri, 26 Jul 1996 04:00:00




> Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
> Date: 18 Jul 1996 04:26:10 -0700
> Organization: fidgety systems administrators gmbh

> I've installed the pgcc port and i've used it sparingly; while i know
> that replacing the system binaries with new stuff is usually not a
> good idea, i still wondered as to whether, since pgcc claims to be
> optimized for the Pentium chip, would there be any significant
> improvement if it were made the system default C compiler?

I think pgcc isn't mature enough to make it to the default compiler !
Another disadvantage is, that a 'make world' doesn't run without
errors. I think you should wait, until gcc-2.7.3 will be released.
If I remember right, the new gcc will be included into -current sooner
or later ;)

        Andreas ///
--
--

Andreas Klemm     ___/\/\/        - Support Unix -

 
 
 

gcc 2.7.2p vs. gcc 2.6.3

Post by Bob Palowo » Tue, 30 Jul 1996 04:00:00




: > Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
: > Date: 18 Jul 1996 04:26:10 -0700
: > Organization: fidgety systems administrators gmbh
: >
: > I've installed the pgcc port and i've used it sparingly; while i know
: > that replacing the system binaries with new stuff is usually not a
: > good idea, i still wondered as to whether, since pgcc claims to be
: > optimized for the Pentium chip, would there be any significant
: > improvement if it were made the system default C compiler?

: I think pgcc isn't mature enough to make it to the default compiler !
: Another disadvantage is, that a 'make world' doesn't run without
: errors. I think you should wait, until gcc-2.7.3 will be released.
: If I remember right, the new gcc will be included into -current sooner
: or later ;)

Ummm, gcc hasn't had a release sence Nov 95.  They must have
died or something.

---Bob

--
+--------------------------------------------------------+

| Solaris x86 Corner http://fiver.sns.com/               |
+--------------------------------------------------------+

 
 
 

gcc 2.7.2p vs. gcc 2.6.3

Post by Michael Sear » Wed, 31 Jul 1996 04:00:00



>> I think pgcc isn't mature enough to make it to the default compiler !
>> Another disadvantage is, that a 'make world' doesn't run without
>> errors. I think you should wait, until gcc-2.7.3 will be released. If I
>> remember right, the new gcc will be included into -current sooner or
>> later ;)
> Ummm, gcc hasn't had a release sence Nov 95.  They must have died or
> something.

And I had heard that 2.7.3 was coming out very soon - does anyone know
when/if it is coming out, or the address for questions about gcc? I am also
waiting for 2.7.3 before using pgcc.

--

 
 
 

gcc 2.7.2p vs. gcc 2.6.3

Post by James Rayna » Thu, 01 Aug 1996 04:00:00




>And I had heard that 2.7.3 was coming out very soon - does anyone know
>when/if it is coming out,

RSN (to coin a phrase), although I heard it was going to be called
something like gcc-2.7.2-1.

Quote:>or the address for questions about gcc?

Presumably one of the gnu newsgroups and/or mailing lists, although
I suspect the developers may be a little tired of hearing this
particular question by now...

Quote:>I am also
>waiting for 2.7.3 before using pgcc.

Very wise.

--
James Raynard, Edinburgh, Scotland

http://www.freebsd.org/~jraynard/

 
 
 

1. Error compiling linux 2.0.13 with gcc 2.7.2p

Hi,

after successfully compiling the 2.0.13 kernel w/ gcc 2.7.2.1,
I tried gcc 2.7.2p, but got a signal 11 while compiling
drivers/block/floppy.c. I tried to compile it manually,
with the same options except omitted -O2. In this case,
no error was reported, but at the end, when the
object files are collected, I get 2 screens of undefined
symbols in the same floppy.o.

I saw the previous discussion on gcc/signal 11, but
in my case it doesnt seem to be a hardware problem,
as gcc 2.7.2.1 does fine, and the error occurs
always in floppy.c.

Any help is appreciated.

Thank you in advance,

Dimiter Dimitriev

2. redhat 7.2 newbie question... book?

3. Cannot Compile linue 1.3.86 with GCC 2.7.2p

4. Installing gcc 2.8.1 from sunfreeware on Solaris 2.6 Ultra 5

5. gcc 2.6 lib use with gcc 2.7?

6. IBM ThinkPad/600 3c562 problem

7. llseek(): GCC 2.7 vs SunProC 4.0

8. 2.4.18-pre7 - known issue with ext3?

9. gcc 2.96 vs. gcc 3.2: namespace, template incompatability

10. gcc-2.96/RH7,3 .vs gcc-3.2/RH8.0 portability issues

11. gcc 2.8.1 vs gcc 2.95.3 optimization on Sparc V8

12. gcc -O2 vs gcc -Os performance

13. gcc 2.95.4 vs gcc 3.3 ?