On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, [iso-8859-1] Sylvain Petreolle wrote: > I tested wine with 3 different compilers at this time: > - orignial RedHat's gcc 2.96 (The_Bad_Thing); > - gcc3 patched to hell Redhat gcc 3.1 (better but not good) > - gcc 3.2 from gcc.gnu.org tarball "The source, Luke." ;) > > 2.96 doesn't pass the tests, > 3.1 too, > 3.2 from source passes. > (and I did a _bunch_ of tests.)
Ok, I'll go for pristine 3.2 gcc when I get a moment. > > Besides, too often I've seen some completely wacky behaviour of > > seemingly > > innocuous code (which I was convinced was because of compiler-error) > > only > > for some subtle code-related bug to turn out to be the culprit. > > > > That said, gcc-2.96 was/is a completely fscked up "release" of gcc. > if you want to say "fucked up", I'm ok (ask to mplayer.hq.hu guys ;)) > if you want to say it's clean, I don't agree in any point. The first: a complete fuck-up. Specifically, when they released RH7.0 w/ gcc "v2.96" the Alpha version was truly awful. Many rather critical (networking) RPM packages just didn't work. But, simply recompiling using a proper version of gcc seemed to solved the problem ... > > > (even if gcc 3.2 is a bit slower to compile wine;)) > > > > How much of a performance hit do you suffer here? > described by gcc team (and others), gcc 3.2 is about 5% slower than 3.0 > (don't know why) Ok, that's not too bad. Cheers, Paul. ---- Paul Millar