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
From: "CM" <cmml AT btinternet DOT com>
To: "'Michael D. Crawford'" <crawford AT goingware DOT com>, <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject: RE: gcc 3
Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 15:06:15 +0100
Message-ID: <004301c208ac$56d482c0$0200a8c0@sknet01>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
In-Reply-To: <3CF6DDFF.8060602@goingware.com>
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000

I have been using gcc (since 3.0.1) under Cygwin with no serious errors
for ages now. The code generated is not only correct but much faster
than in 2.95.3 for the same optimization level.

I use gcc 3.1 throughout my system now, building everything I use very
often with it, including the Cygwin dll itself. I have built gcc 3.1
(with 3.0.4), cygwin1.dll, bash, ash, and binutils with 3.1, and they
have given me absolutely no trouble whatsoever (apart from binutils
which is a little picky about optimization, but that is not gcc-3.1
specific, it happens in 2.95.x as well).

If you want to go for 3.1, why wait for a Cygwin package, gcc builds
right OOTB, and only takes about 25 minutes from configure to install.
It can also be installed alongside the existing gcc, so you can use both
for different tasks.

CM

-----Original Message-----
From: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com [mailto:cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com] On Behalf
Of Michael D. Crawford
Sent: 31 May 2002 03:21
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: RE: gcc 3

That's good to know, some of what I want to use it for is C++.

But how is it for generating correct code?  Does the machine code
correspond 
accurately to what the source requested?

I suppose I can test myself, but one of the things I'd like to do with
it is 
build processor-optimized glibc's for my Linux systems.  It would be a
drag if 
the code was incorrect.

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.

-- 
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/




--
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/