Douglas J. Hunley wrote:
> On Friday 07 September 2001 09:01, Tim Wunder babbled:
>
>>Hi folks,
>>It seems, at least from a response on the kde-linux list I'm on, that gcc
>>2.95, which eW31 has, does not contain optimization code for athlon. This
>>is claimed to be the cause of my system architecture being i686 despite
>>checking Athlon in the kernel make xconfig (a post on the Caldera list that
>>I didn't cross-post here). So the task at hand now is to upgrade gcc to a
>>version that supports athlon optimizations.
>>It appears that the SxS doesn't have anything listed for updating gcc. So
>>before I download the latest 3.01 gcc, I'm looking for caveats from the
>>bright folks on this list. Should I use 3.01, or another version (or just
>>use the one i have and live with i686 optimizations)? What, other than gcc,
>>should get updated in the process? Should I update glibc, too?
>>As always, your assistance is greatly appreciated,
>>Tim
>>
>
> I (like Llama) wouldn't use a 3.x release yet. In theory, 2.95.4 will have
> Athlon support. Upgrading gcc is painless.. see
> http://hunley.homeip.net/linux_sources/utils/gcc_notes
>
> on another note.. you can compile code that is optimized for athlons without
> upgrading gcc... simply use the following as both CFLAGS and CXXFLAGS when
> compiling stuff:
> -O6 -fomit-frame-pointer -ffast-math -march=i686 -mcpu=i686
> -fno-strength-reduce -pipe -malign-functions=4 -funroll-loops
> -fexpensive-optimizations -fschedule-insns2 -mwide-multiply
>
> (you might want to omit the -O6 though as some stuff gets flaky with it)
> !
>
>
On the KDE list, I asked: "Why 2.96? Current version seems to be 3.01. Why not
that?"
And got this response from someone other than the guy recommending 2.96:
<quote>
If you go to http://www.gnu.org/software/gcc/gcc-2.95/gcc-2.95.3.html
you will read
"The whole suite has been extensively regression tested and package tested. It
should be reliable and suitable for widespread use."
and
If you go to http://www.gnu.org/software/gcc/gcc-3.0/
you will not find any such indorsment.
Meaning 2.95.3 is latest stable release............
In fact I don't even see any mention of 2.96.r.....
</quote>
If 2.95.3 is the "latest stable release" and it's been around since March of
this year and Caldera chose not to inlude it in their distro, perhaps it's best
that I leave well enough alone and live with i686 optimization. Of course, I'll
be trying your CFLAGS and CXXFLAGS recommendation, too.
Regards,
Tim
_______________________________________________
http://linux.nf -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives, Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, Etc
->http://linux.nf/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
