*BSD News Article 74215


Return to BSD News archive

Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!munnari.OZ.AU!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!news-res.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!news.mathworks.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!zdc!szdc!szdc-e!news
From: "John S. Dyson" <dyson@indy.celebration.net>
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: gcc 2.7.2p vs. gcc 2.6.3
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 13:00:20 -0500
Organization: AT&T
Lines: 15
Message-ID: <31EFCD34.1FB0@indy.celebration.net>
References: <4sl70i$301@bofh.noc.best.net>
Reply-To: dyson@indy.celebration.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0b5a (WinNT; I)

Ron Echeverri wrote:
> 
> 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