Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Message-ID:	<3CF6DA5C.4040406@goingware.com>
Date:	Thu, 30 May 2002 21:05:16 -0500
From:	"Michael D. Crawford" <crawford AT goingware DOT com>
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.9) Gecko/20020412 Debian/0.9.9-6
X-Accept-Language:	en-us
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	RE: gcc 3

I understand that gcc 3.0 was pretty buggy, but I've read that 3.1 is much more 
reliable.  In your experience, is it as reliable as gcc 2.95.x?

I would like to recompile some things in gcc 3.1, because I understand it has 
better processor-specific optimizations than gcc 2.95 did.  But I only want to 
do that if it's going to produce correct code.

Mike
-- 
Michael D. Crawford
GoingWare Inc. - Expert Software Development and Consulting
http://www.goingware.com/
crawford AT goingware DOT com

  Subscribe to the GoingWare Newsletter at http://www.goingware.com/newsletter/

     Tilting at Windmills for a Better Tomorrow.


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

- Raw text -