On Fri, Jun 28, 2002 at 01:32:44AM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote: > This reminded me of something, > we need this migration to gcc-3.1, > and in my impression, C programs are not > much of a problem because they seem to be binary > compatible (as far as I can tell from objdump outputs) > but C++ programs are very much different. Have you seen what the gcc 3.1 x86 optimizer does to anything not compiled for i386? It's .. scary. The Athlon optimizer still produces illegal code frequently, and I can't say k6 or i686 were much better off. It was legal at least, just less optimized than not specifying a CPU subarch. Someone's gonna argue that's not our concern since we compile for i386 anyway, but before we go transitioning everyone to the latest and greatest gcc, we should make sure it actually is both. (gcc 3.1 is already my primary compiler for non-Debian work, FWIW..) -- Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@bluecherry.net> <-- That boy needs therapy <dhd> is there a special christmas pack for quake <dhd> where you get to be like the santa robot on futurama? <dunham> dhd: that would be a rather unbalanced game... <Knghtbrd> dunham: that's the idea. ;>
Attachment:
pgpQGMsnej6XV.pgp
Description: PGP signature