gcc 3
Subhendu Ghosh
sghosh@sghosh.org
Fri May 31 04:14:00 GMT 2002
On Thu, 30 May 2002, Michael D. Crawford wrote:
> I understand that gcc 3.0 was pretty buggy, but I've read that 3.1 is much more
> reliable. In your experience, is it as reliable as gcc 2.95.x?
>
> I would like to recompile some things in gcc 3.1, because I understand it has
> better processor-specific optimizations than gcc 2.95 did. But I only want to
> do that if it's going to produce correct code.
>
> Mike
>
I have been looking at the C++ compiler only - and it is much
better/stricter with respect to ANSI.
gcc 3.1 is certainly the one I would be looking for.
-subhendu
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
More information about the Cygwin
mailing list