|
|
| Re: 1 billion patches and gcc2.96 still sucks... [message #7380 is a reply to message #7376] |
Wed, 20 November 2002 16:10   |
Ilia
Messages: 13241
Registered: January 2002
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member
Administrator
Core Developer |
|
|
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 #7409 is a reply to message #7408] |
Thu, 21 November 2002 17:19 |
Olliver
Messages: 443
Registered: March 2002
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
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  .
Bye
Olliver
[Updated on: Thu, 21 November 2002 17:21] 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 15:57 |
brewer13210
Messages: 9
Registered: December 2002
Location: Central NY
Karma: 0
|
Junior Member |
|
|
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 16:35 |
Ilia
Messages: 13241
Registered: January 2002
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member
Administrator
Core Developer |
|
|
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
FUDforum Core Developer
|
|
|
|
Calendar
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
. When I had compiled lame once, I had optimized it like hell with these parameters:
. 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.
]