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 :-)

-- Gaby

More information about the gmp-discuss mailing list