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
Date:	Thu, 30 May 2002 22:08:46 -0400 (EDT)
From:	Subhendu Ghosh <sghosh AT sghosh DOT org>
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	RE: gcc 3
In-Reply-To:	<3CF6DA5C.4040406@goingware.com>
Message-ID:	<Pine.LNX.4.44.0205302206550.11981-100000@jersey.sghosh.org>
MIME-Version:	1.0

On Thu, 30 May 2002, Michael D. Crawford wrote:

> 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
> 

I have been looking at the C++ compiler only - and it is much 
better/stricter with respect to ANSI.

gcc 3.1 is certainly the one I would be looking for.

-subhendu


--
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 -