Velocity Reviews

Velocity Reviews (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/index.php)
-   C Programming (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/f42-c-programming.html)
-   -   Potentially OT[?]: Question about gcc ... (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t314090-potentially-ot-question-about-gcc.html)

Big Bird 07-08-2003 11:48 PM

Potentially OT[?]: Question about gcc ...
 
I'm posting this here as I cannot find any ng that would talk about a
particular implementation.

In essence I was curious what to do about gcc-3x which seems to
produce slower and slower code with each incrementing version number.
As of right now (3.3.something) I get stuff that takes about twice as
long (to run, I don't care about compile time) than the binary
produced by 2.96 from the same source. Is this going to change any
time soon? Will gcc3 ever produce code as well optimized as the 2x
stuff? Should I keep a 2.96 installation and compile/link everything
statically? I don't even think I really undestand what benefits there
are to 3x over 2x...

Apologies if this isn't the right NG for this question, but googling
on "gcc 2x 3x" or similar terms leads strictly to this newsgroup...

Ben Pfaff 07-09-2003 12:15 AM

Re: Potentially OT[?]: Question about gcc ...
 
condor@biosys.net (Big Bird) writes:

> Apologies if this isn't the right NG for this question, but googling
> on "gcc 2x 3x" or similar terms leads strictly to this newsgroup...


How did you manage to miss newsgroups like gnu.gcc.help?
--
"To get the best out of this book, I strongly recommend that you read it."
--Richard Heathfield

E. Robert Tisdale 07-09-2003 12:47 AM

Re: Potentially OT[?]: Question about gcc ...
 
Big Bird wrote:

> I'm posting this here as I cannot find any ng
> that would talk about a particular implementation.


Try the gnu.gcc.help newsgroup.
Lots of subscribers to comp.lang.c also subscribe to gnu.gcc.help

> In essence I was curious what to do about gcc-3x which seems to
> produce slower and slower code with each incrementing version number.
> As of right now (3.3.something) I get stuff that takes about twice as
> long (to run, I don't care about compile time) than the binary
> produced by 2.96 from the same source. Is this going to change any
> time soon? Will gcc3 ever produce code as well optimized as the 2x
> stuff? Should I keep a 2.96 installation and compile/link everything
> statically? I don't even think I really undestand what benefits there
> are to 3x over 2x...
>
> Apologies if this isn't the right NG for this question, but googling
> on "gcc 2x 3x" or similar terms leads strictly to this newsgroup...


The 3.x compiler is an all new re-write
which is attempting, first, to comply with the new standards.
Once they have done that, they will start work on optimizing in earnest.
Take a look at the GCC home page:

http://www.gnu.org/software/gcc/


Martin Ambuhl 07-09-2003 01:22 AM

Re: Potentially OT[?]: Question about gcc ...
 
condor@biosys.net (Big Bird) wrote (08 Jul 2003) in
news:df160b8f.0307081548.22cf8ac@posting.google.co m / comp.lang.c:

> I'm posting this here as I cannot find any ng that would talk
> about a particular implementation.


We do portable C, not particular implementations.

> In essence I was curious what to do about gcc-3x which seems to
> produce slower and slower code with each incrementing version
> number.


Doesn't one of
news:gnu.gcc
news:gnu.gcc.announce
news:gnu.gcc.bug
news:gnu.gcc.help
seem more appropriate to you?


--
Martin Ambuhl
Returning soon to the
Fourth Largest City in America


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:59 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.