[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [MiNT] GCC opinions?

To: Martin-Eric Racine <q-funk@pp.fishpool.com>, MiNT List <mint@fishpool.com>
Subject: Re: [MiNT] GCC opinions?
From: Michael Schwingen <rincewind@discworld.dascon.de>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 19:14:36 +0100
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.3.96.990223163520.25718C-100000@hal.fishpool.com>; from Martin-Eric Racine on Tue, Feb 23, 1999 at 04:37:44PM +0200
References: <Pine.LNX.3.96.990223163520.25718C-100000@hal.fishpool.com>
Sender: owner-mint@fishpool.com

On Tue, Feb 23, 1999 at 04:37:44PM +0200, Martin-Eric Racine wrote:
> Some people report 2.7.2.3, others say 2.8.1 works fine, others
> migrate towards EGCS...

I'm back to 2.7.2.1 for compiling the TOS, since 2.8.1 seemed to produce
slightly unstable results, as did egcs 1.1.

However, egcs performs quite well on other machines compared to gcc, so in
the long run we should move towards egcs - if you get a stable version,
include that.

cu
Michael
-- 
Michael Schwingen, Ahornstrasse 36, 52074 Aachen

References:
- [MiNT] GCC opinions?
  - From: Martin-Eric Racine <q-funk@pp.fishpool.com>

Prev by Date: RE: [MiNT] Re: GCC
Next by Date: Re: [MiNT] Re: GCC
Previous by thread: Re: [MiNT] GCC opinions?
Next by thread: Re: [MiNT] GCC opinions?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread