From owner-freebsd-hackers  Sun Jul  7 23:50:31 1996
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id XAA12188
          for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 7 Jul 1996 23:50:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rah.star-gate.com (rah.star-gate.com [204.188.121.18])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id XAA12183
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Sun, 7 Jul 1996 23:50:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rah.star-gate.com (localhost.v-site.net [127.0.0.1]) by rah.star-gate.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id XAA02788 for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Sun, 7 Jul 1996 23:50:25 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199607080650.XAA02788@rah.star-gate.com>
X-Mailer: exmh version 1.6.5 12/11/95
To: hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: A faster compiler? ( Re: gcc lies? )
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 08 Jul 1996 14:43:43 +0900."
             <Pine.SV4.3.93.960708144037.11562B-100000@parkplace.cet.co.jp> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Sun, 07 Jul 1996 23:50:25 -0700
From: Amancio Hasty <hasty@rah.star-gate.com>
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

Well, I sure hope  someone does a performance analysis on gcc-1.42 vs gcc-2.xx 
or a faster compiler comes along .


	Amancio