Re: Why does everyone hate gcc 2.95?

[Jamie Lokier]

Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
> >Hey, colour ls is _useful_!
> Use white background Xterm. Come again?

Ugh!

> One of the biggest mistakes RH ever did was happily jumping off _that_
> cliff to follow SuSE.

Colour ls predates both Red Hat and SuSE.

-- Jamie
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Why does everyone hate gcc 2.95?

[Jamie Lokier]

Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
 Hey, colour ls is _useful_!
 Use white background Xterm. Come again?

Ugh!

 One of the biggest mistakes RH ever did was happily jumping off _that_
 cliff to follow SuSE.

Colour ls predates both Red Hat and SuSE.

-- Jamie
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Why does everyone hate gcc 2.95?

[Kim Shepherd]

Maybe some of us don't use white Xterms.. -bg black (can't remember if
that's exact, but it's something like that) isn't hard to do :)

- Original Message -
From: Henning P. Schmiedehausen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2000 12:51 AM
Subject: Re: Why does everyone hate gcc 2.95?


> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jamie Lokier) writes:
>
> >Alexander Viro wrote:
> >> ITYM "cute". As in "cute dancing paperclip". As colourized ls.
>
> >Hey, colour ls is _useful_!
>
> Use white background Xterm. Come again?
>
> First thing I do on _all_ RH installations is "rm /etc/profile.d/colorls*"
>
> One of the biggest mistakes RH ever did was happily jumping off _that_
> cliff to follow SuSE.
>
> Regards
> Henning
>
> --
> Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen   -- Geschaeftsfuehrer
> INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Am Schwabachgrund 22  Fon.: 09131 / 50654-0   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> D-91054 Buckenhof Fax.: 09131 / 50654-20
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Why does everyone hate gcc 2.95?

[Henning P. Schmiedehausen]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jamie Lokier) writes:

>Alexander Viro wrote:
>> ITYM "cute". As in "cute dancing paperclip". As colourized ls.

>Hey, colour ls is _useful_!

Use white background Xterm. Come again?

First thing I do on _all_ RH installations is "rm /etc/profile.d/colorls*"

One of the biggest mistakes RH ever did was happily jumping off _that_
cliff to follow SuSE.

Regards
Henning

-- 
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen   -- Geschaeftsfuehrer
INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Am Schwabachgrund 22  Fon.: 09131 / 50654-0   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
D-91054 Buckenhof Fax.: 09131 / 50654-20   
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Why does everyone hate gcc 2.95?

[Henning P. Schmiedehausen]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jamie Lokier) writes:

Alexander Viro wrote:
 ITYM "cute". As in "cute dancing paperclip". As colourized ls.

Hey, colour ls is _useful_!

Use white background Xterm. Come again?

First thing I do on _all_ RH installations is "rm /etc/profile.d/colorls*"

One of the biggest mistakes RH ever did was happily jumping off _that_
cliff to follow SuSE.

Regards
Henning

-- 
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen   -- Geschaeftsfuehrer
INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Am Schwabachgrund 22  Fon.: 09131 / 50654-0   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
D-91054 Buckenhof Fax.: 09131 / 50654-20   
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Why does everyone hate gcc 2.95?

[Kim Shepherd]

Maybe some of us don't use white Xterms.. -bg black (can't remember if
that's exact, but it's something like that) isn't hard to do :)

- Original Message -
From: Henning P. Schmiedehausen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2000 12:51 AM
Subject: Re: Why does everyone hate gcc 2.95?


 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jamie Lokier) writes:

 Alexander Viro wrote:
  ITYM "cute". As in "cute dancing paperclip". As colourized ls.

 Hey, colour ls is _useful_!

 Use white background Xterm. Come again?

 First thing I do on _all_ RH installations is "rm /etc/profile.d/colorls*"

 One of the biggest mistakes RH ever did was happily jumping off _that_
 cliff to follow SuSE.

 Regards
 Henning

 --
 Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen   -- Geschaeftsfuehrer
 INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH [EMAIL PROTECTED]

 Am Schwabachgrund 22  Fon.: 09131 / 50654-0   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 D-91054 Buckenhof Fax.: 09131 / 50654-20
 -
 To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
 the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

RE: Why does everyone hate gcc 2.95?

[Purtell, Andrew]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Is this a problem where the code produced by 2.95 was non-optimal in some
significant way or simply incorrect, or is it really just a subjective
"takes to long to compile XXX" thing?


Andrew Purtell
NAI Labs at Network Associates, Inc.Los Angeles, CA
PGP Keys: ldap://certserver.pgp.com
PGP Fingerprint: 5A21 10DB 92B0 CE20 80B4  90D7 A89C D464 AA0A A616

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: PGP 6.5.1
Comment: Crypto Provided by Network Associates 

iQA/AwUBOd4bNaic1GSqCqYWEQJGHQCeNwodLtadXU+kwIXW0Q+6zQMl3c4AoLs6
3KKAuVzXn757Bsp5RrdGZsAT
=1uvj
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

RE: Why does everyone hate gcc 2.95?

[Purtell, Andrew]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Is this a problem where the code produced by 2.95 was non-optimal in some
significant way or simply incorrect, or is it really just a subjective
"takes to long to compile XXX" thing?


Andrew Purtell
NAI Labs at Network Associates, Inc.Los Angeles, CA
PGP Keys: ldap://certserver.pgp.com
PGP Fingerprint: 5A21 10DB 92B0 CE20 80B4  90D7 A89C D464 AA0A A616

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: PGP 6.5.1
Comment: Crypto Provided by Network Associates http://www.nai.com

iQA/AwUBOd4bNaic1GSqCqYWEQJGHQCeNwodLtadXU+kwIXW0Q+6zQMl3c4AoLs6
3KKAuVzXn757Bsp5RrdGZsAT
=1uvj
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Why does everyone hate gcc 2.95?

[Jamie Lokier]

Alexander Viro wrote:
> ITYM "cute". As in "cute dancing paperclip". As colourized ls.

Hey, colour ls is _useful_!

> Or --ignore-fail-on-non-empty as rmdir option. Or "let's replace config
> files with directories full of one-liners since packagers can't be arsed
> to learn sed(1)" religion. Sigh...

No, that's because (a) if 99% of packagers use sed in the right way and
one makes a mistake, all the packages are broken; (b) no package manager
I know of lets you mark a file as belonging to a package
(e.g. inetd.conf to inetd) while doing a sed-like update of the skeleton
part of the file, but keeping the changes from other packages.

Now for an example which does it nicely, see GNU Info, `install-info' :-)

-- Jamie
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Why does everyone hate gcc 2.95?

[Jamie Lokier]

Alexander Viro wrote:
 ITYM "cute". As in "cute dancing paperclip". As colourized ls.

Hey, colour ls is _useful_!

 Or --ignore-fail-on-non-empty as rmdir option. Or "let's replace config
 files with directories full of one-liners since packagers can't be arsed
 to learn sed(1)" religion. Sigh...

No, that's because (a) if 99% of packagers use sed in the right way and
one makes a mistake, all the packages are broken; (b) no package manager
I know of lets you mark a file as belonging to a package
(e.g. inetd.conf to inetd) while doing a sed-like update of the skeleton
part of the file, but keeping the changes from other packages.

Now for an example which does it nicely, see GNU Info, `install-info' :-)

-- Jamie
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Why does everyone hate gcc 2.95?

[Horst von Brand]

"John Anthony Kazos Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> What does everyone have against gcc 2.95 on this list? I've been
> compiling kern els successfully (read: not one single (ever) error in
> compilation) with gcc 2.95.2 for more than a year now. What's the big
> deal?

GCC has traditionally been a decent C compiler. Other languages are a
different matter...
-- 
Dr. Horst H. von Brand   mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 654431
Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria  +56 32 654239
Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, ChileFax:  +56 32 797513
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Why does everyone hate gcc 2.95?

[Jakub Jelinek]

On Tue, Oct 03, 2000 at 11:12:24PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> No, better yet,
> what is a good version to use when porting to a new processor (actually
> an old processor)?  I've pulled the source to gcc (2.95.2) and binutils
> (2.10) in prep for a port to a new/old machine.  If these versions aren't
> good to start from, what versions are and where can I find them?

Those versions surely are not good to start from for doing new ports.
There is almost 2 years of development gone since 2.95 was frozen and many
things have changed, so if you start with 2.95.2, you'll have a hard time
forward porting it to gcc 3.
With binutils it probably does not matter much, but it could be easier to
use CVS as well.

Jakub
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Why does everyone hate gcc 2.95?

[Michael Meding]

Hi there,

> I hate it because it compiles much more slowly than 2.72 and for
> my purposes, 
Hm, have not checked that. Did you do benchmarks here ?

at least, the resulting code is not any faster on
> any of the following platforms: x86, SPARC, MIPS, PA-RISC, and Alpha.
Hm,

quick check of dgemm or also testgart or gears gives me a 10  to 20
percent increase in speed when compiling with -mcpu=pentium -O2 as
switches for both runs on my duron.

All this reasons are not showing that gcc-2.95.2 is somehow broken.
Please enlighten me.

With best regards

Michael


Larry McVoy schrieb:
> 
> On Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 04:28:41AM +, John Anthony Kazos Jr. wrote:
> > What does everyone have against gcc 2.95 on this list? I've been
> > compiling kernels successfully (read: not one single (ever) error
> > in compilation) with gcc 2.95.2 for more than a year now. What's the
> > big deal?
> 
> [Fix your mail program to put in carriage returns at 72 columns, please]
> 
> I hate it because it compiles much more slowly than 2.72 and for
> my purposes, at least, the resulting code is not any faster on
> any of the following platforms: x86, SPARC, MIPS, PA-RISC, and Alpha.
> I ran a bunch of tests with both on the BitKeeper source base, about
> 100K lines of code or so, and then ran the regressions as well as some
> hand picked tests.  No faster.  Just compiles slower.  Add to that
> some distributions BRAINDEAD default of havving colorgcc be the default
> compiler (can you say fork perl to fork gcc?  Can you say STUPID?), and
> you start to understand why the first thing I do is remove all that
> garbage and put back a reasonable compiler.
> 
> I'm not impressed.
> --
> ---
> Larry McVoy  lm at bitmover.com   http://www.bitmover.com/lm
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Why does everyone hate gcc 2.95?

[doctor]

Larry McVoy said ...
> On Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 04:28:41AM +, John Anthony Kazos Jr. wrote:
> > What does everyone have against gcc 2.95 on this list? I've been
> > compiling kernels successfully (read: not one single (ever) error
> > in compilation) with gcc 2.95.2 for more than a year now. What's the
> > big deal?
> 
> [Fix your mail program to put in carriage returns at 72 columns, please]

(kettle calling pot black)  Look at your own signature line, Larry :-)

> I hate it because it compiles much more slowly than 2.72 and for
> my purposes, at least, the resulting code is not any faster on
> any of the following platforms: x86, SPARC, MIPS, PA-RISC, and Alpha.

So your sole basis for disliking 2.95 is that the *compiler* is slower??
Not the code it generates, not the error messages it spits out or the
strictness (or lack there of) of type inforcement??  Just the speed??
Hmm... well, I guess everyone's gotta have something to hate...

All right, then just what *is* a good version to use?  No, better yet,
what is a good version to use when porting to a new processor (actually
an old processor)?  I've pulled the source to gcc (2.95.2) and binutils
(2.10) in prep for a port to a new/old machine.  If these versions aren't
good to start from, what versions are and where can I find them?

> ---
> Larry McVoylm at bitmover.com   
>http://www.bitmover.com/lm 

-- 
Peter A. Castro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> or <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Why does everyone hate gcc 2.95?

[doctor]

Larry McVoy said ...
 On Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 04:28:41AM +, John Anthony Kazos Jr. wrote:
  What does everyone have against gcc 2.95 on this list? I've been
  compiling kernels successfully (read: not one single (ever) error
  in compilation) with gcc 2.95.2 for more than a year now. What's the
  big deal?
 
 [Fix your mail program to put in carriage returns at 72 columns, please]

(kettle calling pot black)  Look at your own signature line, Larry :-)

 I hate it because it compiles much more slowly than 2.72 and for
 my purposes, at least, the resulting code is not any faster on
 any of the following platforms: x86, SPARC, MIPS, PA-RISC, and Alpha.

So your sole basis for disliking 2.95 is that the *compiler* is slower??
Not the code it generates, not the error messages it spits out or the
strictness (or lack there of) of type inforcement??  Just the speed??
Hmm... well, I guess everyone's gotta have something to hate...

All right, then just what *is* a good version to use?  No, better yet,
what is a good version to use when porting to a new processor (actually
an old processor)?  I've pulled the source to gcc (2.95.2) and binutils
(2.10) in prep for a port to a new/old machine.  If these versions aren't
good to start from, what versions are and where can I find them?

 ---
 Larry McVoylm at bitmover.com   
http://www.bitmover.com/lm 

-- 
Peter A. Castro [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Why does everyone hate gcc 2.95?

[Michael Meding]

Hi there,

 I hate it because it compiles much more slowly than 2.72 and for
 my purposes, 
Hm, have not checked that. Did you do benchmarks here ?

at least, the resulting code is not any faster on
 any of the following platforms: x86, SPARC, MIPS, PA-RISC, and Alpha.
Hm,

quick check of dgemm or also testgart or gears gives me a 10  to 20
percent increase in speed when compiling with -mcpu=pentium -O2 as
switches for both runs on my duron.

All this reasons are not showing that gcc-2.95.2 is somehow broken.
Please enlighten me.

With best regards

Michael


Larry McVoy schrieb:
 
 On Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 04:28:41AM +, John Anthony Kazos Jr. wrote:
  What does everyone have against gcc 2.95 on this list? I've been
  compiling kernels successfully (read: not one single (ever) error
  in compilation) with gcc 2.95.2 for more than a year now. What's the
  big deal?
 
 [Fix your mail program to put in carriage returns at 72 columns, please]
 
 I hate it because it compiles much more slowly than 2.72 and for
 my purposes, at least, the resulting code is not any faster on
 any of the following platforms: x86, SPARC, MIPS, PA-RISC, and Alpha.
 I ran a bunch of tests with both on the BitKeeper source base, about
 100K lines of code or so, and then ran the regressions as well as some
 hand picked tests.  No faster.  Just compiles slower.  Add to that
 some distributions BRAINDEAD default of havving colorgcc be the default
 compiler (can you say fork perl to fork gcc?  Can you say STUPID?), and
 you start to understand why the first thing I do is remove all that
 garbage and put back a reasonable compiler.
 
 I'm not impressed.
 --
 ---
 Larry McVoy  lm at bitmover.com   http://www.bitmover.com/lm
 -
 To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
 the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Why does everyone hate gcc 2.95?

[Jakub Jelinek]

On Tue, Oct 03, 2000 at 11:12:24PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 No, better yet,
 what is a good version to use when porting to a new processor (actually
 an old processor)?  I've pulled the source to gcc (2.95.2) and binutils
 (2.10) in prep for a port to a new/old machine.  If these versions aren't
 good to start from, what versions are and where can I find them?

Those versions surely are not good to start from for doing new ports.
There is almost 2 years of development gone since 2.95 was frozen and many
things have changed, so if you start with 2.95.2, you'll have a hard time
forward porting it to gcc 3.
With binutils it probably does not matter much, but it could be easier to
use CVS as well.

Jakub
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Why does everyone hate gcc 2.95?

[Horst von Brand]

"John Anthony Kazos Jr." [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
 What does everyone have against gcc 2.95 on this list? I've been
 compiling kern els successfully (read: not one single (ever) error in
 compilation) with gcc 2.95.2 for more than a year now. What's the big
 deal?

GCC has traditionally been a decent C compiler. Other languages are a
different matter...
-- 
Dr. Horst H. von Brand   mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 654431
Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria  +56 32 654239
Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, ChileFax:  +56 32 797513
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Why does everyone hate gcc 2.95?

[Alexander Viro]

On Tue, 3 Oct 2000, Larry McVoy wrote:

> hand picked tests.  No faster.  Just compiles slower.  Add to that 
> some distributions BRAINDEAD default of havving colorgcc be the default
> compiler (can you say fork perl to fork gcc?  Can you say STUPID?), and

ITYM "cute". As in "cute dancing paperclip". As colourized ls. Or rm
aliased to rm -i for root. Or 31337 cAp1tAl1z3d directory names in root.
Or manpages in HTML (yes, today I had to touch Slowlaris too, why are
you asking?) Or info crap verbose as "War and Peace" instead of manpages.
Or --ignore-fail-on-non-empty as rmdir option. Or "let's replace config
files with directories full of one-liners since packagers can't be arsed
to learn sed(1)" religion. Sigh...

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Why does everyone hate gcc 2.95?

[Larry McVoy]

On Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 04:28:41AM +, John Anthony Kazos Jr. wrote:
> What does everyone have against gcc 2.95 on this list? I've been
> compiling kernels successfully (read: not one single (ever) error
> in compilation) with gcc 2.95.2 for more than a year now. What's the
> big deal?

[Fix your mail program to put in carriage returns at 72 columns, please]

I hate it because it compiles much more slowly than 2.72 and for
my purposes, at least, the resulting code is not any faster on
any of the following platforms: x86, SPARC, MIPS, PA-RISC, and Alpha.
I ran a bunch of tests with both on the BitKeeper source base, about
100K lines of code or so, and then ran the regressions as well as some
hand picked tests.  No faster.  Just compiles slower.  Add to that 
some distributions BRAINDEAD default of havving colorgcc be the default
compiler (can you say fork perl to fork gcc?  Can you say STUPID?), and
you start to understand why the first thing I do is remove all that 
garbage and put back a reasonable compiler.

I'm not impressed.
-- 
---
Larry McVoy  lm at bitmover.com   http://www.bitmover.com/lm 
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Why does everyone hate gcc 2.95?

[John Anthony Kazos Jr.]

What does everyone have against gcc 2.95 on this list? I've been compiling kernels 
successfully (read: not one single (ever) error in compilation) with gcc 2.95.2 for 
more than a year now. What's the big deal?


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Why does everyone hate gcc 2.95?

[John Anthony Kazos Jr.]

What does everyone have against gcc 2.95 on this list? I've been compiling kernels 
successfully (read: not one single (ever) error in compilation) with gcc 2.95.2 for 
more than a year now. What's the big deal?


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Why does everyone hate gcc 2.95?

[Larry McVoy]

On Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 04:28:41AM +, John Anthony Kazos Jr. wrote:
 What does everyone have against gcc 2.95 on this list? I've been
 compiling kernels successfully (read: not one single (ever) error
 in compilation) with gcc 2.95.2 for more than a year now. What's the
 big deal?

[Fix your mail program to put in carriage returns at 72 columns, please]

I hate it because it compiles much more slowly than 2.72 and for
my purposes, at least, the resulting code is not any faster on
any of the following platforms: x86, SPARC, MIPS, PA-RISC, and Alpha.
I ran a bunch of tests with both on the BitKeeper source base, about
100K lines of code or so, and then ran the regressions as well as some
hand picked tests.  No faster.  Just compiles slower.  Add to that 
some distributions BRAINDEAD default of havving colorgcc be the default
compiler (can you say fork perl to fork gcc?  Can you say STUPID?), and
you start to understand why the first thing I do is remove all that 
garbage and put back a reasonable compiler.

I'm not impressed.
-- 
---
Larry McVoy  lm at bitmover.com   http://www.bitmover.com/lm 
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Why does everyone hate gcc 2.95?

[Alexander Viro]

On Tue, 3 Oct 2000, Larry McVoy wrote:

 hand picked tests.  No faster.  Just compiles slower.  Add to that 
 some distributions BRAINDEAD default of havving colorgcc be the default
 compiler (can you say fork perl to fork gcc?  Can you say STUPID?), and

ITYM "cute". As in "cute dancing paperclip". As colourized ls. Or rm
aliased to rm -i for root. Or 31337 cAp1tAl1z3d directory names in root.
Or manpages in HTML (yes, today I had to touch Slowlaris too, why are
you asking?) Or info crap verbose as "War and Peace" instead of manpages.
Or --ignore-fail-on-non-empty as rmdir option. Or "let's replace config
files with directories full of one-liners since packagers can't be arsed
to learn sed(1)" religion. Sigh...

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/