X-pop3-spooler: POP3MAIL 2.1.0 b 4 980420 -bs-
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 10:01:05 +0800 (CST)
From: Yen-Chu CHEN <chenyc AT phys DOT sinica DOT edu DOT tw>
X-Sender: chenyc AT phys10
To: Vincent Diepeveen <diep AT xs4all DOT nl>
Cc: Wolfgang Formann <wolfi AT unknown DOT ruhr DOT de>, beastium-list AT Desk DOT nl
Subject: Re: speed PGCC vs GCC for DIEP
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19980723004246.00941160@xs4all.nl>
Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.91.980723095044.28154E-100000@phys10>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: Marc Lehmann <pcg AT goof DOT com>
Status: RO
X-Status: A
Content-Length: 1115
Lines: 25

Hi,

> I mean: if you still now put all your spare time in making optimizations
> for AMD K6 instead of PII/PRO, then your time will be wasted;
> at the time a new pgcc version which can achieve reasonably optimization
> is ready everyone will be able to buy PII cpu's, like you can buy now AMD K6.
> 
> Look how weird gcc is right now.
> It can optimize EXCELLENT for 486 processors, but it works horrible on PII
> chips. 

When I saw this I would like to say that I do hop someone can spend more
time on pgcc or egcs to improve gcc and make g++ a fully compliant C++ 
compiler, of course on Pentium II. In the field of HEP, after some effort, 
g++ 2.7.2.3 can compile CLHEP library but not other versions. We have no 
problem when using KCC which is claimed to be a fully compliant compiler.

   Maybe I am selfish to those people who don't use Pentium PC's. But 
honestly, we need better pgcc or egcs.

   Best regards,             Yen-Chu Chen
                             chenyc AT fnal DOT gov
                             (630) 840-8871 (experiment)
                             (886) (2)-2789-9681 (A.S., Taiwan)