[rescue] Re: Being jobless
Jonathan C. Patschke
jp at celestrion.net
Tue Jul 29 14:02:49 CDT 2003
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Charles Shannon Hendrix wrote:
> I think a lot of the bloat is geared toward producing better code.
> I'm running gcc 3.2 and it produces better code than the compiler 2
> years ago.
> The binaries on my AMD Athlon system are now faster and smaller, so I'm
> having a hard time complaining right now.
That -is- my complaint. The ONLY platform on which GCC has seen
significant improvement is x86. Yeah, sure, they finally have 64-bit
SPARC support and 64-bit MIPS support but the code generated for those
platforms is still pessimized crap.
Also, I fully realize that some of that is due to the current popularity
that Linux/x86 enjoys, but all the world is not a Linux/x86 system. In
fact, I've not used such a system in nearly two years. By that token,
GCC isn't the right compiler for me, and people who code towards GCC
extensions don't make life particularly easy for me.
> Oh, and Intel doesn't support AMD instruction sets, or any other
> processor platform.
I'm shocked, really. I'd have expected it to support AXP and UltraSPARC
II at the very least. How dare Intel only support their own chips!
Jonathan Patschke ) "We're Texans. We figure out ways to do these
Elgin, TX ( things..." --Bill Bradford
More information about the rescue