[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       mandrake-cooker
Subject:    Re: [Cooker] Why gcc 2.96 and not 3.0?
From:       Maks Orlovich <mo002j () mail ! rochester ! edu>
Date:       2001-07-20 15:49:16
[Download RAW message or body]

On Friday 20 July 2001 10:22 am, you wrote:
> On 20010720 Chris Mumford wrote:
> >> gcc3.0 is in contrib and wasn't ready when mdk8.0 got out of the box
> >
> >(needless
> >
> >> to says that using a new compiler means rebuilding all packages (3-4
> >> days
> >
> >with
> >
> >> rpm-rebuilder) and _testing_)
> >
> >The only package that I know has problems with 2.96 is LAME. It builds,
> > but has runtime errors in the release build. I switched to the 3.0
> > compiler and the problems went away.

AFAIK, gcc-3.0 doesn't properly build KDE's aRts. And, as a C++ developer, I 
can tell you that it is noticeably slower than 2.96. 
Skimming through the gcc mailing list, there also seem to be some performance 
regressions in the new inliner.. On the other hand, 3.0.1 should be out in 
August, fixing some of these problems. 


(Notice you already said some of what I have. Oops)

>
> BTW, I think that the new g++ ABI is incompatible with all previuos
> versions, but has been thought enough to be stable and do not need any more
> changes in the future.

Not quite. Apparently the C++ ABI is stable - but libstdc++ ABI is not, and 
will change for 3.1. That might be less of an issue, of course, since it can 
be handled easier by compat libs...

Maksim Orlovich, 
TEP Team. 

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]