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:	<3CF6DDFF.8060602@goingware.com>
Date:	Thu, 30 May 2002 21:20:47 -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

That's good to know, some of what I want to use it for is C++.

But how is it for generating correct code?  Does the machine code correspond 
accurately to what the source requested?

I suppose I can test myself, but one of the things I'd like to do with it is 
build processor-optimized glibc's for my Linux systems.  It would be a drag if 
the code was incorrect.

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.

-- 
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 -