Date: Mon, 4 May 98 9:10:04 PDT From: Joe Buck <jbuck@Synopsys.COM> To: pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG, obrien@NUXI.com, egcs@cygnus.com Subject: Re: GCC Message-ID: <199805041610.JAA18839@atrus.synopsys.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.96.980503174423.2818J-100000@alcyone.dbai.tuwien.ac.at>; from "Gerald Pfeifer" at May 3, 98 6:26 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > In production shops, I've seen a lot more places go to gcc 2.8.1 > > than EGCS, so I feel gcc/g++ is better tested and stable. > > Guys like Joe Buck <jbuck@synopsys.com>, author of the "FAQ for g++ > and libg++", happen to disagree: > > [EGCS 1.0.x] is considerably more stable than 2.8.1 and vastly > more stable than the gcc2 snapshots [...] My statement above applies to C++. For C, I'd say gcc 2.8.1 seems fine. Those of us on both lists who see the reports know that the egcs testing has been more thorough that the gcc 2.8.x testing. Also, because gcc 2.8.1 is missing some crucial backend fixes, I would be very cautious about shipping any C++ code that uses exceptions with 2.8.1. Those false warnings you get with -O and -Wall are due to gcc 2.8.1's faulty control flow analysis, and that faulty analysis is used as the basis of optimization. Of course, you can verify by careful testing that your code is not being misoptimized, but since there is a better option available you are better off using it. gcc -fno-exceptions for gcc 2.8.1 is probably fine. The scandal is that the story FSF has put out as to why gcc 2.8.x took so long had to do with exceptions -- and they *still* haven't gotten it right. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199805041610.JAA18839>