Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 13:19:55 +0100 From: Timo Geusch <freebsd@timog.prestel.co.uk> To: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: new compiler? Message-ID: <19980816131955.A25942@prestel.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.96.980814093744.24706A-100000@tundra.winternet.com>; from Kyle Mestery on Fri, Aug 14, 1998 at 09:47:46AM -0500 References: <Pine.BSF.3.96.980814101222.1993B-100000@bright.fx.genx.net> <Pine.GSO.3.96.980814093744.24706A-100000@tundra.winternet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Aug 14, 1998 at 09:47:46AM -0500, Kyle Mestery wrote: > > gcc 2.8.1? (i've heard masses of people complain it's buggy) > > ecgs (not heard much... but i know it has some interesting optimizations > > for i386, and better C++ support) > > anything else? > > > I have heard the opposite. I have heard that egcs is buggy.:) On one of > the NetBSD lists, someone said the latest egcs release only compiles > decent code on ix86 and sparc platforms. And Terry has said before that > the way they handle threads is broken, because you must compile thread > support into the compiler. I haven't heard as many bad things about > gcc-2.8.1. Well, it seems to depend on the architecture that you are running on. I used the gcc28 port to build FreeBSD kernels on my box here and it works fine. At work, however, I'm running several Sparcs with OpenBSD 2.3 (which includes gcc 2.8.1 as default compiler). This compiler is REALLY buggy - there are lots of ways to make it barf with internal compiler errors, even on source code that compiles cleanly on a '386 gcc 2.8.1. So I guess YMMV, but I'd rather stay with 2.7.2.1 as default for the moment and have an additional gcc28 in my local tree just in case want/need it for C++ work. Timo To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19980816131955.A25942>