Message-Id:	<200010150233.e9F2XeL09964@panther.unisys.com.br>
Date:	Sat, 14 Oct 2000 23:34:57 -0400
From:	Count0 <count0 AT linuxfreak DOT com>
To:	pgcc AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: Re: pgcc didn't perform for me
In-Reply-To:	<20000928190628.G18291@cerebro.laendle>
References:	<Pine DOT GSO DOT 4 DOT 21 DOT 0009212159160 DOT 24859-100000 AT physun DOT physics DOT mcmaster DOT ca> <20000928190628 DOT G18291 AT cerebro DOT laendle>
X-Mailer:	Spruce 0.7.5 for X11 w/smtpio 0.9.0
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	pgcc AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	pgcc AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Thu, 28 Sep 2000, Marc Lehmann wrote:

> > Sorry,
 
> No problem. pgcc performs best with pentii, and since a lot of
> optimizations fortunately went into 2.95.2 pgcc becomes increasingly
> obsolete ;)

How obsolete ? 

I mean, is it still better in terms of optimization to use pgcc ? If it makes
little difference... Well, regular gcc is more stable right ?

-- 

       -Count Zero-
                    
	 	"On receiving an interrupt, 
			decrement the counter to zero"

- Raw text -