[rescue] Why gcc exists - Re: Help with SunFire V240 Server
b4 at gewt.net
Thu Apr 11 12:30:22 CDT 2013
Sent from a mobile device
On 11 Apr 2013, at 13:25, "John Floren" <john at jfloren.net> wrote:
> gcc really likes to be helpful and optimize for you. We've found that
> sometimes, it'll optimize out entire loops and function calls, whether we
> wanted them executed or not!
At least it's not like helpful GNU configure scripts that just exit with no
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Toby Thain
<toby at telegraphics.com.au>wrote:
>> On 11/04/13 12:58 PM, Andrew Gaylard wrote:
>>> On 04/11/13 17:50, microcode at zoho.com wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 05:25:06PM +0200, Andrew Gaylard wrote:
>>>> I have downloaded the Sun Studio compiler, but haven't tried it;
>>>>> gcc has always "just worked" for me.
>>>> Not surprising given 99.9% of apps seem to be written for Linux.
>>>> Still, most
>>>> stuff builds easily on Solaris with Studio after you set CFLAGS and
>>>> occasionally LDFLAGS. One notable exception is git.
>>>> Does someone have any info (URLs, etc) showing if it really is
>>>>> faster, and
>>>>> by how much?
>>>> It seems pretty obvious to me Solaris Studio would be faster on SPARC,
>>>> like Intel's compilers are faster on Intel chips. Why would anybody
>>>> gcc is faster or better at anything?
>>> The reason I think it's faster is that, on SunOS-4.1.1, gcc-2.2's code
>>> (I think it was 2.2) was 30-50% faster than /usr/bin/cc.
>>> Oh wait, that was 23 years ago.
>> Being "better than vendor's" was not only the raison d'jtre for gcc, it
>> was also why it eventually supplanted nearly all of them :)
>> (Also, 23 years ago, x86 wasn't a mainstream server platform.)
>> But tell the kids these days... they won't believe yer...
>>> You're probably right. Old habits die hard.... :)
>> rescue list -
> rescue list - http://www.sunhelp.org/mailman/listinfo/rescue
More information about the rescue