GCC quality (was Re: AMD-64 optimizations, some (new) code)
saghmos at xter.net
Tue Sep 27 19:52:22 CEST 2005
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
sources of old bugs were replaced with fresh code, also well designed
and tested. I expected the 4th version to be much more stable than the
now-old 3 version. I'm sure you know what you are talking about though,
so I'll take your word.
> 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?
By the way, the same problems you speak of are very serious issues in
Intel's C++ compilers as well. In particular, I've written MP math
function and when optimizations were enabled, Intel's generated binaries
would simply either hang (at initialization, before calling main) or
crash instanty. In some cases it would generate wrong code, by that was
more rare than hangs and crashes. I've found these problems in at least
7 and 8. In this respect version 6 is more stable than version 7 than
version 8. I have version 9, but its requirements to install it are too
much to pollute my workstation.
I thought it would be interesting to put a $400+ professional and
commercial compiler in prespective with an open-source, FREE compiler.
More information about the gmp-discuss