Re: Debian from the Stampede's POV
On Wed, 20 May 1998, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On the other hand, I thought we'd dropped pgcc because egcs has those
> optimisations anyway. In that case, you have to wonder (a) if they know
> what they're on about, and (b) how up to date they really are.
I think the pgcc people are still fiddling around, nowadays they patch
against egcs, not gcc 2.7 :>
My feeling is that pgcc is probably more agressive than egcs is. While
egcs does contains some of the more general optimizations it doesn't have
many of the specific case optimizations that pgcc does.
It's probably worth packaging, a pentium optimized gzip would be a good
thing, same for bzip2 and a few other key packages - but I think the code
size increase we'd get from compiling everything with pgcc would be
detrimental to small-medium systems. Already egcs gives quite an increase
in size (apt's .deb is 60k larger!) :<
Also, I keep saying this from time to time, Pgcc does not actually use
pentium instructions - just pentium timings, pipeline layout, cache
algorithms and so on. It's code will run fine on a 386, however on a 386
you will burn extra cycles, this is much less so on a 486 as it's timings
are closer to a pentium...
Jason
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: