Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 12 Jan 2002 01:29:43 +0100 | From | eddantes@wanadoo ... | Subject | Re: Regression testing of 2.4.x before release? |
| |
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
[snip]
> One particular application for which gcc 3.x *and* gcc 2.96.x are > seriously deficient, at least on Intel/AMD 32-bit systems, is the > high-performance linear algebra library Atlas. As a result, *my* default > for compiling numerical applications is the Atlas-recommended one, > 2.95.3. For the kernel, I use whatever the Red Hat 7.2 default is. >
Mmhh... Just remember gcc 2.96.x is NOT a regular gcc release, you can check at: http://www.gnu.org/software/gcc/releases.html AFAIK, it is a RH-hacked pre-3.0, which is probably not the best thing to use for anything.
The 3.x series are know to generate pretty slow code, anyway. So I bet your experience is pretty normal. I still stick with 2.95.[34] for x86 kernel compile, although I'm using 3.0 for all purposes on Hitashi SH, as only gcc>=3.0 correctly supports the sh4.
/dantes
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |