By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
454,381 Members | 1,561 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 454,381 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Potentially OT[?]: Question about gcc ...

P: n/a
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...
Nov 13 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
3 Replies


P: n/a
co****@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
Nov 13 '05 #2

P: n/a
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/

Nov 13 '05 #3

P: n/a
co****@biosys.net (Big Bird) wrote (08 Jul 2003) in
news:df*************************@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
Nov 13 '05 #4

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.