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

Re: [MiNT] 030-version of gcc


> > You oversee some important points. The 3.x series of the gcc is much
> > slower and require much more memory than the 2.95.3.
> You may be right, but only for the compilation.

The people who use the gcc already complain about the memory and
the CPU usage. Not everybody have a 060 machine with tons of RAM.

> The produced executables
> are quicker and smaller. This is the significant progress, don't you
> think so ?

The performance gain of the compiled executables is smaller as you may
think (this apply especially for C code; C++ profit more). The m68k
backend don't changed much from 2.95.3 -> 3.x; on other architectures it
look different for sure.

> > Also the C++
> > ABI changed incompatible, you must rebuild and replace all C++
> > libraries at once.
> Is there many C++ programs specifically written for ATARI machines ?
> I only know one, that is "Nethack". The other are adapted from other
> platforms and should be rewritten.
> I don't practice C++, but for C there's no problem of portability
> between 2.9x to 3.x. "math.h" should only be adapted a bit for
> the inline code. Anyway, if C++ (not C) programs have problems,
> it should be corrected, because it is a problem of non portability.
> They are not cleanly written. Don't you think so ?

You don't read my statement correctly (or I wrote it wrong).

You can't link C++ objects from 2.95.3 with 3.x objects and vice versa.
That means that all sparemint libraries that include C++ objects must be
recompiled. If you provide the 2.95.x as fallback you also need all C++
including libraries as 2.95.x version.

> I personally have a Hades 060, I'm an ATARI developer with no
> such problems. All ATARI machines are not suitable for developments.
> People who don't want GCC 3.x can still use 2.9x. But you can't
> limitate the majority of developers because of a minority. For
> the users, they should be pleased, because GCC 3.x is better.
> 3.x produces better code, and can be better optimized. That's
> a strong advantage !

The 3.x versions of the gcc are no such better as you describe here (for
the m68k backend), sorry that's not the reality. Not to speak about the
newly introduced bugs in gcc 3.x (they will be eliminated over the time).


e-Mail: fnaumann@freemint.de