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

Re: [MiNT] 030-version of gcc

...

Frank Naumann wrote:

Well, I think that our philosophy are rather opposed. Keep in mind that
I am speaking of ATARI hardware to run those applications. Did you
forgot it ? If freeMiNT is designed to be the free kernel of ARAnyM,
why not ? I personally have an unmodified Falcon 030 (1993), and Hades
060 (1996) that are not powerful enough to run "Unix" applications.


Your own arguments conflict:


Not at all ! If the system leave me some time to execute my complex
applications, I cans run those applications. If the system is fat and
slow, I will forget those complex applications, right away !


Second hand, the applications that I'm interested in are quite complex.
You spoke about 1% or 2% speedup. With Persistence Of Vision or OpenGL
it could be quite satisfactory. For the latest OpenGL library that I
maintain (TinyGL 0.45 that will soon be delivered) it is much more !
The gain is around 5% of execution speed. Do we matter if the
compilation time is worse ? And OpenGL is real time ... Think about
execution time of POV, that I also maintain, that is much much more
complex. 5% represent quite a lot of spared time.


POV and the OpenGL libs are in the first time Unix applications that you
compile on the ATARI with much help of FreeMiNT/MiNTLib/gcc and lot of
the Sparemint tools that provide an Unix environment.


Except that nothing else than the MiNT kernel itself comes from it ...


And especially POV require CPU power at all, It's a very specific
application and I'm sure that most ATARI user don't use POV on their
ATARI as main application.


Do you know that a graphical modeller has been done to give it an
easy access, that is called EB Model 3, made by Emmanuel Baranger.
Emmanuel has quite a lot of registered users. Open your eyes !


That's not true. You have already decided that GCC 3.x is bad, and
you have condemned it without trying it.


That's wrong and wrong.

First, I never decided or said that gcc 3.x is bad. I just said that for
[my ATARI requirements] gcc 3.x is not so much better than gcc 2.95.3 that
the higher compile time and memory consumption are overcompensated by the
win.


You always repeat the same song !


Secondly, as already mentioned before, I compiled several versions of the
gcc 3.x nativly for FreeMiNT and as cross compiler. I also used and still
use the gcc 3.x compiler under NetBSD, Linux and Windows [cygwin/mingw].


Patrice Mandin didn't used it as a cross compiler (he could have done
it) but as a native compiler under ARAnyM ...


nights and days 24h/24h ... Give it a try, please !


Maybe you explain what do you understand under 'Give it a try'. I'm sure I
spent much more time on compiling and testing the gcc 3.x as you are
willing to accept here.


It means, try it ! Leave it a chance !


Please speak about what you really know. Change your opinion about GCC
3.x. Give it a try !


I don't know why you obsessively repeat this.


This is called emphasis ! Don't you read me ?

CU,

-- Dr. François LE COAT
Author of Eureka 2.12 (2D Graph Describer, 3D Modeller)
http://eureka.atari.org
mailto:lecoat@atari.org