Re: gcc 2.8
Dmitry Yaitskov (dima@interlog.com)
Wed, 15 Apr 1998 01:05:40 -0400
On Tuesday, Apr 14, Michael L. Galbraith (mikeg@weiden.de) spake thusly:
> On Tue, 14 Apr 1998, Adam D. Bradley wrote:
>
> >
> > > Awhile ago (maybe just a few months - I don't remember) I "upgraded" from
> > > gcc 2.7.2.3 to gcc 2.8.0. Recently (past couple of days) I read somewhere
> > > that gcc 2.7.2.3 was still preferred for kernel compilations over gcc
> > > 2.8.0, pgcc, and egcs because the latter three can produce "bad" code. Is
> > > this true? If so, is it really necessary for me to go back to using 2.7.2.3?
> >
> > 2.8.0 has some known problems. 2.8.1 is better, don't know how much
> > better tho.
> >
>
> FWIW I've had nice experiences with 2.8.1.. very heavy useage. I don't
> over optimize tho as bloated bins/libs turns my system into a slug.
>
> -Mike
Well, I prob'ly shouldn't post an essentially 'me too' follow-up, but
anyway... I've been using gcc 2.8.1 for 2 or 3 weeks now, while moving
my system from libc5 to glibc2 and from kernel 2.0.33 to 2.1.xx (which
means recompiling all system stuff, no prebuilt binaries) - and did
not notice any problems with the compiler.
--
Cheers,
-Dima.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu