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

Discussion in 'C Programming' started by Big Bird, Jul 9, 2003.

  1. Big Bird

    Big Bird Guest

    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...
    Big Bird, Jul 9, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Big Bird

    Ben Pfaff Guest

    (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
    Ben Pfaff, Jul 9, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. 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/
    E. Robert Tisdale, Jul 9, 2003
    #3
  4. (Big Bird) wrote (08 Jul 2003) in
    news: / 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
    Martin Ambuhl, Jul 9, 2003
    #4
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    8
    Views:
    405
  2. RSH
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    287
    David Hogue
    May 22, 2006
  3. Kevin P. Fleming

    C99 structure initialization in gcc-2.95.3 vs gcc-3.3.1

    Kevin P. Fleming, Nov 6, 2003, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    628
    Kevin P. Fleming
    Nov 6, 2003
  4. Jan Danielsson
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    299
  5. Replies:
    5
    Views:
    346
    Nathan Addy
    Sep 17, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page