> On Wed, 9 Dec 1998, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > > > gcc version egcs-2.91.57 19980901 (egcs-1.1 release) has no problem
> > > > to compile 6.4, and 1.1.1 release also compiles 6.4 fine.
> > > > Today I installed 1.1.1 and recompile 6.4 - no problem !
> > > > Probably egcs people fixed the problem.
> > >
> > > What optimization level do you use? Do you find that the newer version
> > > of egcs does a good job with floating point rounding, or are the
> > > regression tests filled with ".999999" results? I much preferred the
> > > gcc-2.7.x behavior wrt graceful rounding, and hope that at some point
> > > egcs will also have it...
> >
> > Why do people use egcs? It looks like an experimental version of gcc2,
> > and I am not big on experimental compilers. I want something that
> > works, 100% of the time.
>
> EGCS is about as 'experimental' as PostgreSQL, actually. From
That bad, huh. :-) Only joking.
> what I've read about EGCS, its basically GCC in a more open development
> model/scenario...those using and playing with it have anon-cvs access to
> the source code, can follow along with the development, and have very open
> and visible access to the developers...
>
> About the only 'truly experimental' nature to EGCS is that there
> are alot more ppl whom have access to the source code at development
> stages, compoared to GCC where you basically see a release and that's
> it...
I agree gcc2 took a long time to become usable, and it seemed to take
too long, and the egcs people think the development model was part of
the cause perhaps. I can see that. We add stuff in PostgreSQL, and
with so many other people testing, we get good quick feedback that
allows us to be more aggressive in adding features.
Has anyone compared the code output or speed comparisons?
-- Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle maillist@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026