This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Optimization: RedHat vs. GCC v3.0x?
- To: swsnyder at home dot com
- Subject: Re: Optimization: RedHat vs. GCC v3.0x?
- From: Geoff Keating <geoffk at geoffk dot org>
- Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 21:35:26 -0700
- CC: swsnyder at home dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Reply-to: Geoff Keating <geoffk at redhat dot com>
> From: Steve Snyder <email@example.com>
> Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 18:55:53 -0500
> Cc: email@example.com
> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Oct 2001 23:55:51.0328 (UTC) FILETIME=[9994EA00:01C14AD4]
> On Monday 01 October 2001 05:15 pm, Geoff Keating wrote:
> > Steve Snyder <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > > RedHat , in releasing their own version of the GCC compiler for their
> > > v7.x distributions, stated that one of their reasons for doing so was
> > > performance. It was said that the RedHat-specific compiler generated
> > > better x86 code than the as-yet-unreleased GCC v3.00.
> > Did someone really say that?
> > It seems unlikely that the reason for using 2.96 over 3.0 for Red Hat
> > Linux 7 was performance, because when 7 came out 3.0 was not released.
> > In fact, there hasn't been a Red Hat Linux release since 3.0 came out.
> The claim was made as an argument against using a beta version of v3.0 in
> RedHat v7.x distros. You're correct that no 3.x release was available when
> the statement was made. Check out: http://www.bero.org/gcc296.html
>From that web page:
* gcc 2.96 is actually more standards compliant than any other version
of gcc released at the time Red Hat made this decision
* gcc 2.96 generates better, more optimized code
I think bero meant 'more optimized code than any other version of gcc
released at the time Red Hat made this decision', which was around the
middle of last year.
- Geoffrey Keating <email@example.com>