🚀 go-pugleaf

"Robert Myers" <rmyers1400@attbi.com> writes:

> Oh, geez, here we go again.
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Hugh" <hugh@nospam.com>
> Newsgroups:
> comp.os.linux.hardware,gnu.gcc,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.text.tex
> Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2002 11:05 AM
> Subject: P4 vs Athlon for Linux latexing, is gcc-2.95 responsible?
> 
> 
> > The following is my general finding so far:
> >
> > Special features of Pentium 4 cpu is not generally utilized
> > by gcc-2.95.** which is used for most Linux distributions rpms.
> > Latexing a big document with Zeon Pentium 4 at 1.7GHz (52 sec) is actually
> > even slower than Pentium III running at 700MHz giving 35 sec.
> >
> > On Athlon at 1.6GHz, it gives 16 sec.  The best.
> >
> > Is my understanding for the reason of slow speed with P4 correct?
> > gcc-2.95.  If I do obtain te-latex.src.rpm and then compile it
> > with gcc-3.1, would I get much faster binary under Pentium 4?
> >
> An even more interesting question would be whether Intel's own compiler,
> icc, which for Linux is available free for personal use, would give better
> results.  If anybody should be able to write a compiler to exploit the
> strengths of the P4 and to minimize its weaknesses, it should be Intel.  At
> least up until gcc 3.0, icc generally beat the pants off gcc.  Even RedHat,
> which isn't known for being conservative about new releases, has yet to
> bless and release a distribution of gcc 3.0, and if RedHat isn't ready to go
> there, neither am I.

it's not that redhat doesn't trust gcc 3.0 or 3.1.  they even ship a
gcc3 package if you wish to have that newer compiler too.

it's because redhat keeps the same basic compiler version with its
N.X release where N is constant.  it has a lot to do with each release
of gcc (and egcs) breaking C++ compatibility with the last release
(libstdc++.so becomes incompatible *every* time, sometimes name
mangling changes).

redhat 6.X used the latest egcs despite gcc-2.95 being available when
X got to 1.  for redhat 7.X they went to a development snapshot of 3.0
(since 3.0 was taking a long time to come together).  the first
version of 2.96 (redhat's designation not approved by gcc people but
you now what i am talking about so i'll continue to call it that) had
a few bugs which prevented kernel compile, but it has long since
stabilized into a reasonably trustworthy compiler.

i would expect redhat will use gcc 3.1 for their 8.X releases.

-- 
Johan KULLSTAM <kullstj-nn@attbi.com> sysengr