Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:44:53 -0800
From:      Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu>
To:        "Daniel O'Connor" <doconnor@gsoft.com.au>
Cc:        Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@optushome.com.au>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Let's use gcc-4.2, not 4.1 -- OpenMP
Message-ID:  <20061215044453.GB9381@troutmask.apl.washington.edu>
In-Reply-To: <200612151450.39260.doconnor@gsoft.com.au>
References:  <20061213192150.CF83D16A417@hub.freebsd.org> <20061214183026.GA1532@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org> <4581A3E3.9060807@samsco.org> <200612151450.39260.doconnor@gsoft.com.au>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 02:50:30PM +1030, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
> On Friday 15 December 2006 05:50, Scott Long wrote:
> > Yes, the industry moves fast, but that's no reason to fool ourselves
> > into thinking that the FSF will support GCC 4.2 a day after they release
> > 4.3 and start working on 4.4.  Your point above about the lifespan of
> > FreeBSD 7.x is a valid one, and I agree that it should be a
> > consideration.  Vendor support is a myth and should not be a
> > consideration.
> 
> Not to mention it is *trivial* to install a compiler using ports or packages.
> 
> If you are serious about high performance computing installing a new compiler 
> is about the lowest barrier you'll find.
> 

Actually, 4.1.x will produce much worse code than 3.4.6.
You can search the gcc mail listings for extensive comparison
by Clinton Whaley (the author of math/atlas) for details.

-- 
Steve



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20061215044453.GB9381>