From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Feb 28 11:34:55 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id LAA05490 for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 28 Feb 1996 11:34:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from rah.star-gate.com (rah.star-gate.com [204.188.121.18]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA05483 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 1996 11:34:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from rah.star-gate.com (localhost.v-site.net [127.0.0.1]) by rah.star-gate.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA00729; Wed, 28 Feb 1996 11:33:02 -0800 Message-Id: <199602281933.LAA00729@rah.star-gate.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 1.6.5 12/11/95 To: "Marc G. Fournier" cc: hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Pentium gcc (pgcc) in ports... In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 28 Feb 1996 14:20:26 EST." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 28 Feb 1996 11:33:01 -0800 From: "Amancio Hasty Jr." Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Nope pgcc is not a replacement for gcc. Just try it. I think most people that into this sort things are using pgcc to further optimize floating point intense application and to a lesser extent integer intense applications -- provided of course that the apps compile. Amancio >>> "Marc G. Fournier" said: > On Tue, 27 Feb 1996, Amancio Hasty Jr. wrote: > > > Well, the general consesus is that someone drop the ball and in some > > programs like mpeg_play we lost oh about 30% performace from > > a previous pgcc version. > > > > Okay...that helps a little bit...but, were I to compare straight > 2.7.2 against pgcc...has pgcc been patched up enough that optimizations > work as you would hope, and would the current pgcc's performance be better > then stock-2.7.2? Or is there a lose in performance there too? > > Would I be safe with replacing cc with pgcc? > > Marc G. Fournier | POP Mail Telnet Acct DNS Hosting > System | WWW Services Database Services | Knowledge, > Administrator | | Information and > scrappy@ki.net | WWW: http://www.ki.net | Communications, Inc >