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
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 22:08:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: Subhendu Ghosh <sghosh AT sghosh DOT org>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: RE: gcc 3
In-Reply-To: <3CF6DA5C.4040406@goingware.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0205302206550.11981-100000@jersey.sghosh.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Thu, 30 May 2002, Michael D. Crawford wrote:

> 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
> 

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.

-subhendu


--
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/