From ilug-admin@linux.ie Mon Jul 29 11:28:14 2002
Return-Path: <ilug-admin@linux.ie>
Delivered-To: yyyy@localhost.netnoteinc.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by phobos.labs.netnoteinc.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D7DE44153
for <jm@localhost>; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 06:25:16 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from phobos [127.0.0.1]
by localhost with IMAP (fetchmail-5.9.0)
for jm@localhost (single-drop); Mon, 29 Jul 2002 11:25:16 +0100 (IST)
Received: from lugh.tuatha.org (root@lugh.tuatha.org [194.125.145.45]) by
dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g6SIYvi18724 for
<jm-ilug@jmason.org>; Sun, 28 Jul 2002 19:34:57 +0100
Received: from lugh (root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lugh.tuatha.org
(8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA19871; Sun, 28 Jul 2002 19:33:29 +0100
X-Authentication-Warning: lugh.tuatha.org: Host root@localhost [127.0.0.1]
claimed to be lugh
Received: from smtp016.mail.yahoo.com (smtp016.mail.yahoo.com
[216.136.174.113]) by lugh.tuatha.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA19837
for <ilug@linux.ie>; Sun, 28 Jul 2002 19:33:21 +0100
Received: from p237.as1.cra.dublin.eircom.net (HELO mfrenchw2k)
(mfrench42@159.134.176.237 with login) by smtp.mail.vip.sc5.yahoo.com with
SMTP; 28 Jul 2002 18:33:18 -0000
Message-Id: <002a01c23664$b7326d40$f264a8c0@sabeo.ie>
From: "Matthew French" <mfrench42@yahoo.co.uk>
To: <ilug@linux.ie>
References: <200207262228.XAA19581@lugh.tuatha.org>
<20020727015716.A6561@ie.suberic.net>
<200207271701.SAA23172@lugh.tuatha.org> <3D4359EE.9050405@esatclear.ie>
Subject: Re: [ILUG] Optimizing for Pentium Pt.2
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2002 19:29:29 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-Msmail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
Sender: ilug-admin@linux.ie
Errors-To: ilug-admin@linux.ie
X-Mailman-Version: 1.1
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: Irish Linux Users' Group <ilug.linux.ie>
X-Beenthere: ilug@linux.ie
Paul Kelly mentioned:
> gcc has been as good as or better than pgcc for quite a while. pgcc was
> was written back in the days when gcc splintered due to a perception of
> slow progress on the main branch. A number of Linux distributions wound
> up using egcs, partly derived from the pgcc work as I recall. Happiness
> was restored to the world with gcc 2.95 and later.
I do not have the time to follow the compiler "wars", but I notice that I
must use egcs to build 64 bit SPARC code.
GCC 3 should do it, but because it is so "buggy"[1] it is not worth trying
to use unless you really want to track down those compiler errors... :(
- Matthew
[1] "buggy" in the sense that its a feature. Many of the problems with GCC 3
seem to be related to stricter syntax checking. More accurate information
will be appreciated.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com
--
Irish Linux Users' Group: ilug@linux.ie
http://www.linux.ie/mailman/listinfo/ilug for (un)subscription information.
List maintainer: listmaster@linux.ie