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: <3CF6DA5C.4040406@goingware.com>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 21:05:16 -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
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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
-- 
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/