Heiko Müller wrote: > Dear Thiemo, > we very much appreciate your work on the gcc-2.95 debian package. > For us - and probably also for other users in the scientific > community - the "old" compiler version is still of great value. > > We use gcc-2.95 to compile C/C++ code with very large mathematical > expressions generated by computer algebra software. This involves > very long (several thousand lines of code) functions to evaluate > multi-variable polynomial expression resulting from perturbation > theoretical solutions of physical problems. > > We found that gcc-2.95 -Os produces object code of acceptable quality > within reasonable compilation times. gcc >=3 is less efficient w.r.t. > compilation time and memory consumption and in many cases even fails > to compile our codes due to the very long expressions. The C/C++ codes > generated from the computer algebra software are perhaps unusual but > not broken.
Well, gcc 3.x was somewhat disappointing WRT, but I would expect 4.0 to do better. If 4.x fails for your (valid and standard-conforming) code, please consider to provide a testcase to the upstream developers. I'm sure they are interested in it, and long-term it will help you as well to have a more modern compiler which can handle such cases. > Since what we are doing is not so unusual in theoretical physics we are > probably not alone with these kind problems. Please consider that even > if no other debian packages would depend on gcc-2.95 many users may > very much require it. Indeed, I got also one private reply which suggested gcc-2.95 is still an interesting choice for some numerics code. Thiemo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
