Bug#102193: gcc-3.0: compiled code with gcc 3.0 is slow and big
On Tue, Jan 08, 2002 at 06:27:20PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Phil Edwards writes:
> >
> > On top of all the other reasons already mentioned, the memory expansion
> > code for basic_string<> in 3.0 wasn't as good as it could be (and it
> > wasn't strictly conforming in some cases). These problems have already
> > been fixed for 3.1; there are some spiffy benchmarks in the libstdc++
> > mailing list archives.
> >
> > If building from source, there is a library snapshot (called 3.0.95) which
> > can be used for the 3.0 compiler. Dunno how this would work with Debian.
>
> how stable is this compared to 3.0.3? Is the ABI upward compatible, so
> that it could replace 3.0.3?
Good point. This is something a lot of people get confused by. Including
me, so get your grains of salt ready.
The C++ ABI is stable. The libstdc++ ABI is not. Yet.
3.0 -> 3.1 changes the libstdc++ ABI. We would like for the libstdc++
released with GCC 3.1 to be the base of a stable ABI. With only a few
people actively contributing/changing code, I have no idea whether that'll
happen or not. (The code can't stay as it is; it's way too inefficient
in some cases. The idea was to get the library /correct/ first and then
start sweating over speed and whatnot; now we're doing that.
The library 3.0.95 snapshot is the 3.1 sources as of a few weeks ago,
with the exception-handling bits tweaked to work with GCC 3.0.
Phil
--
If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater
than the animating contest for freedom, go home and leave us in peace. We seek
not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you;
and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. - Samuel Adams
Reply to: