Message-Id:	<200207311900.VAA12619@mailproxy.de.uu.net>
Date:	Wed, 31 Jul 2002 21:01:06 +0200
From:	Sebastian Ude <ude AT handshake DOT de>
To:	pgcc AT delorie DOT com
CC:	gnu AT khopis DOT com
Subject:	Re: help: gcc 2.95.2.1 ignored --program-prefix
In-Reply-To:	<3D43D1C1.1040702@khopis.com>
References:	<3D43D1C1 DOT 1040702 AT khopis DOT com>
X-Mailer:	Spruce 0.7.6 for X11 w/smtpio 0.9.0
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	pgcc AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	pgcc AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Sun, 28 Jul 2002, gnu AT khopis DOT com (Adam Katz) wrote:
> Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2002 07:13:05 -0400
> To: gcc AT gcc DOT gnu DOT org
> From: gnu AT khopis DOT com (Adam Katz)
> CC: pgcc AT delorie DOT com
> Reply-To: pgcc AT delorie DOT com
> Subject: help: gcc 2.95.2.1 ignored --program-prefix
>
>                       (note - I am not subscribed to any relevent
> newsgroups)
> To whom it may concern:
>
> after installing gcc 3.1.1 (sucessfully with bootstrap, I sent in an
> email earlier for the Build Status page, copied below), I decided to
install
> pgcc <URL:http://www.goof.com/pcg>, which is distributed via diffs to gcc
> 2.95.2.1.

[...]

I don't think that was a good idea. gcc 3.x should optimize at least as
good, most likely a bit better than pgcc on Pentium I/II/III/IV or K6 / K7
with -march=[cpu type].

Just stick with gcc 3.x and consider PGCC obsolete.


- Sebastian

- Raw text -