I tested wine with 3 different compilers at this time: - orignial RedHat's gcc 2.96 (The_Bad_Thing); - gcc3 patched to hell Redhat gcc 3.1 (better but not good) - gcc 3.2 from gcc.gnu.org tarball "The source, Luke." ;)
2.96 doesn't pass the tests, 3.1 too, 3.2 from source passes. (and I did a _bunch_ of tests.) > Besides, too often I've seen some completely wacky behaviour of > seemingly > innocuous code (which I was convinced was because of compiler-error) > only > for some subtle code-related bug to turn out to be the culprit. > > That said, gcc-2.96 was/is a completely fscked up "release" of gcc. if you want to say "fucked up", I'm ok (ask to mplayer.hq.hu guys ;)) if you want to say it's clean, I don't agree in any point. > > > > (even if gcc 3.2 is a bit slower to compile wine;)) > > How much of a performance hit do you suffer here? described by gcc team (and others), gcc 3.2 is about 5% slower than 3.0 (don't know why) ___________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et en français ! Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com
