GCC quality (was Re: AMD-64 optimizations, some (new) code)
Gabriel Dos Reis
gdr at integrable-solutions.net
Sat Oct 1 01:24:14 CEST 2005
Ashod Nakashian <saghmos at xter.net> writes:
| Torbjorn Granlund wrote:
| > Alexander Kruppa <alexander.kruppa at mytum.de> writes:
| > Torbjorn Granlund wrote:
| > > I think you'll find that gcc 4.0.1 is a lot worse than 3.3.3. It
| > > might be safer to upgrade to 3.3.6 (or whatever is the latest 3.3
| > > release).
| > Torbjörn, what is your opinion on the 3.4.x version of gcc? Is it safe
| > to use?
| I'm quite surprised. 4.0 was supposedly well tested and most of the
Not as fas as I know, which is why we had GCC-4.0.1 come out ahead
of time :-/
| sources of old bugs were replaced with fresh code, also well designed
| and tested.
Replacing old codes does not always imply decrease of bugs, no matter
the how much effort is spent in the design :-)
The old codes had been around for long time, therefore got more tested
than the new ones.
| > I have had more problems with 3.4.x than with 3.3.x. But with
| > the track record of gcc, it is not safe to use any gcc release.
| So 3.3.x is the most stable one?
Yes, because it is a closed series :-)
More information about the gmp-discuss