Date:	Tue, 18 Jan 2000 20:04:25 +0200 (WET)
From:	Andris Pavenis <pavenis AT lanet DOT lv>
To:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
cc:	Jason Green <news AT jgreen4 DOT fsnet DOT co DOT uk>, djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: Executable size: limit to acceptability?
In-Reply-To:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1000118100244.3041J-100000@is>
Message-ID:	<Pine.A41.4.05.10001181958240.35296-100000@ieva01.lanet.lv>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	dj-admin AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Tue, 18 Jan 2000, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> 
> On Mon, 17 Jan 2000, Jason Green wrote:
> 
> > I am curious how many people in this group use PGCC, and what for.  Is
> > it just for speed-freaks ;) or are there other reasons for using it?  
> 
> IMHO, there are actually good reasons NOT to install it.  Many people 
> report that it is unstable and produces unstable code.  Now that mainline 
> GCC supports Pentium in a reasonable way, I cannot imagine why would 
> someone want PGCC.
> 
> Also, I think the DJGPP support in PGCC is outdated.
> 

The way how gcc-2.95.X is beiing built for DJGPP is rumored 
to work also for corresponding PGCC versions:
	- modifying of sources for DJGPP (You need gcc2952s2.zip)
	- building compiler

However my experience with PGCC shows that it's less stable than GCC

Andris

- Raw text -