| 1 |
On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 05:01:35PM +0100, Sigurd Stordal wrote: |
| 2 |
> I've just loaded this compilers, and I just wonder if anyone else has used |
| 3 |
> them, any packages that don't enjoy this compilers. Are they really very much |
| 4 |
> better than gcc. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
They really do generate better performing code than gcc, and most |
| 8 |
packages can be built successfully. I wouldnt reccomend switching from |
| 9 |
gcc to ccc for shared libraries (like zlib, openssl, etc) at the moment, |
| 10 |
but most other things should work just great, and give a noticable |
| 11 |
performance improvement (apache, python, bash, perl, etc). |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
cxx is a little more brittle than ccc, some code will make it dump core, |
| 14 |
but ccc seems stable and gives very verbose and easy to read error |
| 15 |
messages if something goes wrong, or it finds some code it doesnt like |
| 16 |
(much nicer than gcc errors :). |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
the major problem with shared libraries is that applications compiled |
| 19 |
with gcc that link with them require -lots, this can be solved by adding |
| 20 |
libots to each library...i have some plans to work around this. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
------------------------------------- |
| 24 |
taviso@××××××××××××.org | finger me for my gpg key. |
| 25 |
------------------------------------------------------- |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
gentoo-alpha@g.o mailing list |
Archives