Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2000 00:30:24 -0400 (AST) From: Peter Cordes To: pgcc AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: Perhaps a stupid question In-Reply-To: <20000209003053.DKOU11@thanny> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Reply-To: pgcc AT delorie DOT com Errors-To: dj-admin AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: pgcc AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk On Tue, 8 Feb 2000, Mike Ruskai wrote: > Are you suggesting that PGCC does not improve on -mpentium over EGCS? No, I'm not suggesting that. You didn't mention any pentiums, and I assumed you would be running the code on the 486. If you distribute the compiled code, make sure pgcc hasn't used any non-i386 instr. (so it will run on all machines, but run fastest on pentiums.) Obviously, the 486 is the machine to use for that. Give the occasional miscompilation of certain code by pgcc, you should be careful about distributing binaries compiled with it. Normal gcc with -mpentium might be good enough for you code. Maybe if you ran a benchmark and found that pgcc was a significant improvement (5 or 10% or more), then distributing pgcc compiled code would make sense. Happy hacking, #define X(x,y) x##y DUPS Secretary ; http://is2.dal.ca/~dups/ Peter Cordes ; e-mail: X(peter AT cordes DOT phys. , dal.ca) "The gods confound the man who first found out how to distinguish the hours! Confound him, too, who in this place set up a sundial, to cut and hack my day so wretchedly into small pieces!" -- Plautus, 200 BCE