Re: Regression testing of 2.4.x before release?

eddantes@wanadoo.fr
Sat, 12 Jan 2002 01:29:43 +0100


M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:

[snip]

> One particular application for which gcc 3.x *and* gcc 2.96.x are
> seriously deficient, at least on Intel/AMD 32-bit systems, is the
> high-performance linear algebra library Atlas. As a result, *my* default
> for compiling numerical applications is the Atlas-recommended one,
> 2.95.3. For the kernel, I use whatever the Red Hat 7.2 default is.
>

Mmhh... Just remember gcc 2.96.x is NOT a regular gcc release, you can
check at:
http://www.gnu.org/software/gcc/releases.html
AFAIK, it is a RH-hacked pre-3.0, which is probably not the best thing
to use for anything.

The 3.x series are know to generate pretty slow code, anyway. So I bet
your experience is pretty normal. I still stick with 2.95.[34] for x86
kernel compile, although I'm using 3.0 for all purposes on Hitashi SH,
as only gcc>=3.0 correctly supports the sh4.

/dantes

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/