On Tue, 19 Feb 2002, Ladislav Michl wrote: > > gcc 3.0 is, generally, better than gcc 2.95.4. I know one reason why > > woody is shipping with 2.95 as the default on all architectures that > > support it is because switching to 3.0 will require a recompile of all > > C++ software in the distribution; but if you're just compiling C code, I > > can't see any reason that gcc 3.0 wouldn't be sufficient for your own > > use. It's certainly the compiler that will likely see the most bugfixes.
On Tue, 19 Feb 2002, Ladislav Michl wrote: > gcc-3.0 is crap. it misscompiles mipslinux kernel, compiles slowly and > generates slow code. do not use it and protect yourself from pain ;-) Is there anything you can point out specifically? I am very interested, because I am using 3.0.1 to compile my MIPS(EL) kernels, and I am having a problem with kernel modules. It seems that the kernel does not create the neccessary TLB refill entries in the "pgd_current" table. > i didn't believe to Ralf and tried myself. bad, bad... go for egcs-1.1.2 > gcc-3.0.3 is a little bit better, but egcs-1.1.2 still rulez. I am always glad to receive advice from more experienced people, but I find it most helpful when someone gives information that I can verify. Is there any chance that you have an example of code that gcc-3.x compiled incorrectly? Thanks, and all the best, -Richard
