FUDforum
Fast Uncompromising Discussions. FUDforum will get your users talking.

Home » General » General Chit Chat » 1 billion patches and gcc2.96 still sucks...
Show: Today's Messages :: Unread Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator
| Subscribe to topic | Bookmark topic 
Switch to threaded view of this topic Create a new topic Submit Reply
1 billion patches and gcc2.96 still sucks... [message #7376] Tue, 19 November 2002 17:07 Go to next message
Olliver   Germany
Messages: 443
Registered: March 2002
Karma: 0
Senior Member
add to buddy list
ignore all messages by this user
Hi,
This major annoyance I noticed when using the lame encoder for recoding a messy mp3 I found somewhere in the depths of the internet Wink. When I had compiled lame once, I had optimized it like hell with these parameters:
"-O3 -march=i386 -mcpu=i686 -fomit-frame-pointer -fno-strength-reduce -malign-functions=4 -funroll-loops -ffast-math"
But it turned out to be the ultimate overkill. lame totally screwed up spitting error messages like a machine-gun Sad. recompiling using gcc 3.2 fixed the problem however. I can't understand this issue: Redhat has been fixing the 2.96 series for 2 years now, about 400 patches and still it's awfully buggy. On the other hand, gcc 3.2 is very strict, so compiling may fail more often where the older version used to tolerate errors.
Oh well, why don't I use Windoze? Would be sooo easy, because if something isn't working I could always blame M$ for it Wink
bye
Olliver
Re: 1 billion patches and gcc2.96 still sucks... [message #7380 is a reply to message #7376] Wed, 20 November 2002 11:10 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ilia is currently offline  Ilia   Canada
Messages: 13241
Registered: January 2002
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Administrator
Core Developer
add to buddy list
ignore all messages by this user
gcc 2.96 is faulty compiler and that's is an optimistic overview. Redhat has screwed when they decided to ship their distro with it, anyone using 2.96 should either take the time to upgrade to 3.2, which from what I hear is quite good or downgrade to the solid 2.95.3

FUDforum Core Developer
Re: 1 billion patches and gcc2.96 still sucks... [message #7408 is a reply to message #7380] Thu, 21 November 2002 12:10 Go to previous messageGo to next message
hackie is currently offline  hackie   Canada
Messages: 177
Registered: January 2002
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Core Developer
add to buddy list
ignore all messages by this user

prottoss wrote on Wed, 20 November 2002 11:10

gcc 2.96 is faulty compiler and that's is an optimistic overview. Redhat has screwed when they decided to ship their distro with it, anyone using 2.96 should either take the time to upgrade to 3.2, which from what I hear is quite good or downgrade to the solid 2.95.3



You still need to apply good good 4 or 5 patches to gcc 3.2 before it's useable.

Here are some of them:
http://www.zipworld.com.au/~gschafer/lfs-tweaks.html



cc intelligence.c -o intelligence
$ ./intelligence
Segmentation fault
Re: 1 billion patches and gcc2.96 still sucks... [message #7409 is a reply to message #7408] Thu, 21 November 2002 12:19 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Olliver   Germany
Messages: 443
Registered: March 2002
Karma: 0
Senior Member
add to buddy list
ignore all messages by this user
On Tuesday, gcc3.2.1 was released which should address almost all issues. According to its homepage at www.gnu.org there's one issue left which can't be fixed yet because it would require too much changes. Will be done in 3.3. Meanwhile I noticed that the compiler doesn't like my pthread.h anymore, configure complains it would be present but not usable. Hm, will check later, what Google suggests as a solution Smile.
Bye
Olliver

[Updated on: Thu, 21 November 2002 12:21]

Report message to a moderator

Re: 1 billion patches and gcc2.96 still sucks... [message #7786 is a reply to message #7376] Sun, 15 December 2002 10:57 Go to previous messageGo to next message
brewer13210 is currently offline  brewer13210   United States
Messages: 9
Registered: December 2002
Location: Central NY
Karma: 0
Junior Member
add to buddy list
ignore all messages by this user
Intel has a C++ compiler for Linux that is suppsed to rock. I haven't tried it out, but you can download a 30-day trial version from the Intel web site. A trial version also came with my Mandrake distro.

Yeah, it isn't open source, but the code it produces is also more compact than gcc.


If you spend all your time arguing with fools, you'll just end up tired and they'll still be fools.
Re: 1 billion patches and gcc2.96 still sucks... [message #7808 is a reply to message #7786] Mon, 16 December 2002 11:35 Go to previous message
Ilia is currently offline  Ilia   Canada
Messages: 13241
Registered: January 2002
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Administrator
Core Developer
add to buddy list
ignore all messages by this user
For X86 Intel compiler would beat anything, because it has been written by people who made the X86 cpu and is optimized specifically for that CPU. GCC can optimize code for numerous platforms and can work on a large variety of architectures so it is slightly less capable then Intel compiler when it comes to optimizing code on X86 but in exchange it offers usability for other OSes & cpus.
That said, the new gcc 3.2 is VERY close to what the Intel compiler produces & unlike the Intel compiler it is free & open source Smile


FUDforum Core Developer
Quick Reply
Formatting Tools:   
  Switch to threaded view of this topic Create a new topic
Previous Topic: new topic
Next Topic: happy new year
Goto Forum:
  

-=] Back to Top [=-
[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [ RSS ]

Current Time: Wed Oct 18 16:36:07 EDT 2017

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.00718 seconds