>
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 12:32:53AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > But the gcc people tell that gcc 2.96 generates slower code than gcc
> > 2.95.2. And I have found that it can't recompile itself in pinstripe
> > (it core dumps). This could be due to glibc since when I replaced it
> > with gcc 2.95.2 it crashed too.
>
> Huh? gcc builds itself in our tree all the time. Who said it's
> slower code?
>
Don't remember but apparently the guy had benchmarked it. About
crashes, since both gcc 2.95.2 and gcc 2.96 are crashing (and gcc 2.95
built fine in 6.2) I would point to glibc. If it builds for you and
not for me then causes could be:
-I use more agressive flags than you (-O3)
-You compile gcc with an older glibc and then you go for compiling the
newer glibc. BTW that glibc is an unofficial version.
--
Jean Francois Martinez
Project Independence: Linux for the Masses
http://www.independence.seul.org
_______________________________________________
Redhat-devel-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-devel-list
