From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri May 17 00:52:07 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id AAA24965 for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 17 May 1996 00:52:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from MindBender.HeadCandy.com (root@[199.238.225.168]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id AAA24958 for ; Fri, 17 May 1996 00:52:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost.HeadCandy.com (michaelv@localhost.HeadCandy.com [127.0.0.1]) by MindBender.HeadCandy.com (8.7.5/8.6.9) with SMTP id AAA16653; Fri, 17 May 1996 00:51:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199605170751.AAA16653@MindBender.HeadCandy.com> X-Authentication-Warning: MindBender.HeadCandy.com: Host michaelv@localhost.HeadCandy.com [127.0.0.1] didn't use HELO protocol To: Peter Mutsaers cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: internal compiler error In-reply-to: Your message of 17 May 96 00:14:30 +0200. <87loisb709.fsf@plm.simplex.nl> Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 00:51:48 -0700 From: "Michael L. VanLoon -- HeadCandy.com" Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk [Gcc...] >But the newer versions are quite a bit faster. I used to use Linux >until recently and it uses 2.7.2 for everything, so it must be >possible for FreeBSD too. It is a pity to ignore such easy performance >gain. Actually, in many cases the latest versions of GCC can be substantially slower because it's such a pig, compared to a few years ago. GCC 1.4.5 was used by NetBSD looong after GCC 2 was released. It was very quick, easy on memory, and very stable (read not very buggy). GCC 2.x.x in the 2.5.x time-frame was a buggy mess, from the many accounts I've heard. The two biggest reasons they finally switched to 2.x.x were because 1) GCC 2.7 finally fixed enough of the bugs that it was deemed usable, and some of the non-i386 ports (like the 68K) didn't produce very good code in 1.4.5, and 2) there were just some features they needed to move forward (many of them having to do with obscure non-Intel processors, from what I remember). The core group has said more than once, however, that if they could find another ANSI-compliant compiler, source-distributable, not under the GPL (well, under a Berkeley-style license), that was much smaller and simpler, and worked well with all the architectures, they'd jump to it without a complaint. Lcc is one that has come up several times, but has been deemed "not quite ready, yet". I'm sure the FreeBSD "powers-that-be" have similar motives. Just because Linux does something is hardly a reason to follow. In fact, there has been many a time where that is exactly why I *didn't* do something. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael L. VanLoon michaelv@HeadCandy.com --< Free your mind and your machine -- NetBSD free un*x >-- NetBSD working ports: 386+PC, Mac 68k, Amiga, Atari 68k, HP300, Sun3, Sun4/4c/4m, DEC MIPS, DEC Alpha, PC532, VAX, MVME68k, arm32... NetBSD ports in progress: PICA, others... Roll your own Internet access -- Seattle People's Internet cooperative. If you're in the Seattle area, ask me how. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------