> > > Mandrake's developpers claims using gcc2.95 and say it's make a big > > > difference. > > > > I figure it's worth a try :-) > > > > I got pgcc 2.95.3 > > pgcc != gcc. pgcc has been known to produce bad code before, so I > wouldn't trust it too much. Yeah, but it's an open-source product, so it's subject to continual improvement; it's not like pgcc is a Microsoft product or anything. :-) Besides, so far, I've build glibc and XFree-86 for i686 with pgcc, and installed both, and so far the machine hasn't shown any obvious glitches. (I'm working on the fundamental libraries first.) Steven Boswell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To unsubscribe: mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] < /dev/null
- Re: Why no i586/i686 support? Thomas Dodd
- Re: Why no i586/i686 support? Steven Boswell
- Re: Why no i586/i686 support? John Summerfield
- Re: Why no i586/i686 support? JF Martinez
- Re: Why no i586/i686 support? JF Martinez
- Re: Why no i586/i686 support? Chmouel Boudjnah
- Re: Why no i586/i686 support? Trond Eivind Glomsrød
- Re: Why no i586/i686 support? John Summerfield
- Re: Why no i586/i686 support? Steven Boswell
- Re: Why no i586/i686 support? Trond Eivind Glomsrød
- Re: Why no i586/i686 support? Steven Boswell
- Re: Why no i586/i686 support? John Summerfield
- Re: Why no i586/i686 suppo... Steven Boswell
- Re: Why no i586/i686 suppo... JF Martinez
- Re: Why no i586/i686 suppo... Alan Shutko
- Re: Why no i586/i686 suppo... John Summerfield
- Re: Why no i586/i686 suppo... Alan Shutko
- Re: Why no i586/i686 suppo... John Summerfield
- Re: Why no i586/i686 suppo... Alan Shutko
- RE: Why no i586/i686 suppo... Joseph Malicki
- Re: Why no i586/i686 suppo... Alan Cox