From:	jonathan c mckinney <jcmcknny AT students DOT uiuc DOT edu>
Message-Id:	<199906190750.CAA23996@ux12.cso.uiuc.edu>
Subject:	Re: pgcc does better, reboot, then does terrible!
To:	pgcc AT delorie DOT com
Date:	Sat, 19 Jun 1999 02:50:14 -0500 (CDT)
In-Reply-To:	<19990617231401.A968@cerebro.laendle> from "Marc Lehmann" at Jun 17, 99 11:14:01 pm
X-Mailer:	ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	pgcc AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	pgcc AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

Well, pgcc = egcs+patches, so not sure what your point is.

And I already said that I used the -mcpu=pentiumpro and -march=pentiumpro compile options on both with no errors, so you can't be right in thinking I used the old egcs.  I KNOW that's not the case.

You a newbie too?

-Jon


> On Thu, Jun 17, 1999 at 03:46:38AM -0500, JonMcK wrote:
> > 19990314/Linux (egcs-1.1.2 release)^@^@GCC: (GNU) egcs-2.91.66
> > 19990314/Linux (egcs-1.1.2 release)^@^@GCC: (GNU) egcs-2.91.66
> > 19990314/Linux (egcs-1.1.2
> > release)^^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^A^@^@^@01.01^@^@^^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^A^@^@^@01.01
> > 
> > 
> > Yes, I have the order right.  If you'll notice the SLOW one mentions pgcc
> > sometimes while the FAST one doesn't.  BTW, the FAST one is a little larger
> > than the SLOW one.
> 
> Then the fast one was probably compiled with egcs!
> 
> --  
>       -----==-                                             |
>       ----==-- _                                           |
>       ---==---(_)__  __ ____  __       Marc Lehmann      +--
>       --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ /       pcg AT goof DOT com      |e|
>       -=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\       XX11-RIPE         --+
>     The choice of a GNU generation                       |
>                                                          |
> 

- Raw text -