why gcc-3.1?

James Iwanek chthon at chthon-uk.com
Mon May 27 04:46:22 PDT 2002

>"Michael Brömer" <mib at telebel.de> wrote in message
news:200205271305.06661.mib at telebel.de...
>Am Montag, 27. Mai 2002 06:37 schrieben Sie:
>> Other than just being first-on-the-block, what are the advantages of
>> gcc-3.1 over gcc-2.95.3?
>We had long discussion about this, have a look at the archives.
>> Is gcc-3.1 planned for the next LFS?
>It is already in CVS
>> Sounds spooky to me.

spose some people just cant believe that the GCC peops came REALLY close to
a hitting deadline

>> I notice the guru's here all catching errors and making
>> patches just trying to get a base system running.
>Out of all the packages just ncurses,vim and perl need a little
>"assistence" compiling and patches are already available.

which is after all perfect reasonable

strangely you wont see many people moaning that X isnt working properly in
lfs-dev - i wonder why ;-P

>> Is a system built with gcc-3.1 going to be a safe production system?
>No problems here, as solid as a system build with 2.95.3, meaning
if not better than 2.95.3....

>> What about those of us who don't know how to turn a compile error into a
>> patch and yet find ourselves needing packages that no one here has any
>> for or experience with?
>I guess that all actively maintained projects will make their source
>compile with gcc-3.1 sooner or later, i suppose it will be sooner...
>And by the way you are by no means forced to use the same compiler as
>the book does. Just stick with 2.95.3 if it is more to your liking.
>I use gcc-3.1 exclusively since the day it come out and i think its
>great, "-O3 -march=athlon-mp" anyone?

and there are loads of "guru's" here spitting out patches - patience my

>I also postulate (of course without any authority and with just a
>single test i ran) that gcc-3.1 gives better performance.
>I did the following in my usual working environment on always
>the same machine, with BLFS systems build using gcc-2.95.3 and 3.1:
>:> time bzip2 mozilla.tar (mozilla.tar beeing about 250MB)
>Thats what i got:
>1 .) gcc-2.95.3: -O3 -march=i686 :
>     209.47 user
>     1.18 system
>     3:30.77 elapsed
>     99%CPU
>2 .) gcc-3.1: -O3 -march=i686:
>     197.82user
>     1.87system
>     3:20.94elapsed
>     99%CPU
>3 .) gcc-3.1: -O3 -march=athlon-mp:
>     190.04user
>     0.91system
>     3:10.95elapsed
>     99%CPU
>About 10% better performance from 1.) to 3.) !


Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-dev' in the subject header of the message

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list