Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 16:51:28 -0600 From: Daniel Robbins To: pgcc AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: PGCC and EGCS question Message-ID: <19990613165128.A1003@enoch.weebletron.net> References: <19990603213117 DOT D15111 AT cerebro DOT laendle> <19990612103853 DOT A18024 AT enoch DOT weebletron DOT net> <19990613230422 DOT D31417 AT cerebro DOT laendle> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95i In-Reply-To: <19990613230422.D31417@cerebro.laendle>; from Marc Lehmann on Sun, Jun 13, 1999 at 11:04:22PM +0200 Reply-To: pgcc AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: pgcc AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk On Sun, Jun 13, 1999 at 11:04:22PM +0200, Marc Lehmann wrote: > > 1.1.1 should, 1.1.3 does not (at least not for all people). The snapshot > should. > > The egcs version does not have these high optimization levels, so the > answer is, strictly speaking, no in that case as well ;) > > If you use -O2, however, both egcs and pgcc should be able to recompile > themselves. Well, what's the point of -O2? That's no fun. Maybe I can get the snapshot going for the time being. From a stability point of view, am I losing anything by going with the current snapshot (compared to 1.1.3)? Which one would you choose to base a distribution around -- the current snapshot or 1.1.1? Thanks for the feedback, -- Daniel Robbins Chief Architect Enoch GNU/Linux drobbins AT swcp DOT com