X-pop3-spooler:	POP3MAIL 2.1.0 b 4 980420 -bs-
Date:	Thu, 23 Jul 1998 10:01:05 +0800 (CST)
From:	Yen-Chu CHEN <chenyc AT phys DOT sinica DOT edu DOT tw>
X-Sender:	chenyc AT phys10
To:	Vincent Diepeveen <diep AT xs4all DOT nl>
Cc:	Wolfgang Formann <wolfi AT unknown DOT ruhr DOT de>, beastium-list AT Desk DOT nl
Subject:	Re: speed PGCC vs GCC for DIEP
In-Reply-To:	<3.0.32.19980723004246.00941160@xs4all.nl>
Message-Id:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.980723095044.28154E-100000@phys10>
Mime-Version:	1.0
Sender:	Marc Lehmann <pcg AT goof DOT com>
Status:	RO
X-Status:	A
Lines:	25

Hi,

> I mean: if you still now put all your spare time in making optimizations
> for AMD K6 instead of PII/PRO, then your time will be wasted;
> at the time a new pgcc version which can achieve reasonably optimization
> is ready everyone will be able to buy PII cpu's, like you can buy now AMD K6.
> 
> Look how weird gcc is right now.
> It can optimize EXCELLENT for 486 processors, but it works horrible on PII
> chips. 

When I saw this I would like to say that I do hop someone can spend more
time on pgcc or egcs to improve gcc and make g++ a fully compliant C++ 
compiler, of course on Pentium II. In the field of HEP, after some effort, 
g++ 2.7.2.3 can compile CLHEP library but not other versions. We have no 
problem when using KCC which is claimed to be a fully compliant compiler.

   Maybe I am selfish to those people who don't use Pentium PC's. But 
honestly, we need better pgcc or egcs.

   Best regards,             Yen-Chu Chen
                             chenyc AT fnal DOT gov
                             (630) 840-8871 (experiment)
                             (886) (2)-2789-9681 (A.S., Taiwan)

- Raw text -