Find the answer to your Linux question:

View Poll Results: Which Version of GCC do you use?

Voters
25. You may not vote on this poll
  • 3.3.*

    2 8.00%
  • 3.4.*

    15 60.00%
  • 4.0.*

    5 20.00%
  • 4.1.*

    3 12.00%
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 25
Originally Posted by gruven You should try 4.0.*. I have noticed a large decrease in compile times, and it seems that it makes faster binaries. Well worth the upgrade from ...
Enjoy an ad free experience by logging in. Not a member yet? Register.
  1. #11
    Linux Newbie
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    150

    Quote Originally Posted by gruven
    You should try 4.0.*. I have noticed a large decrease in compile times, and it seems that it makes faster binaries.

    Well worth the upgrade from 3.4.5. Everything compiles so far too. I haven't had one thing that hasn't compiled with it. That is with XFCE4, Gnome, and KDE 3.5.
    Last I checked, mplayer wasn't compatible with 4.0.*. That, combined with the fact that they don't distribute binary packages (I was on Suse at the time), ticked me off for a bit.
    \"Nifty News Fifty: When news breaks, we give you the pieces.\" - Sluggy Freelance

  2. #12
    Linux Engineer
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    1,429
    Quote Originally Posted by Cabhan
    I know that gcc is out up to the 4.*'s, but I'm sticking with the stable x86 branch, so 3.4.

    See no reason to use a compiler that has problems.
    I agree. Don't fix anything that ain't broken. My distro recently migrated to 3.4.5, so I moved along . I mostly see compilation problems with the 4.x compilers, so I won't go that way. Furthermore, I maintain some packages for my distro, using the default GCC provides the best compatibility in that case .
    ** Registered Linux User # 393717 and proud of it ** Check out www.zenwalk.org
    ** Zenwalk 2.8 - Xfce 4.4 beta 2- 2.6.17.6 kernel = Slack on steroids! **

  3. #13
    Linux Engineer
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,431
    Quote Originally Posted by gruven
    I have noticed a large decrease in compile times, and it seems that it makes faster binaries.
    I didn't know that, I belive I heard some time ago that 4.0 was the slowest gnu compiler ever... Can't remember where though.


    I use the latest stable build available through the package manager. On gentoo, I'd use 3.4. On Arch, I'd use 4.0. On freebsd, I'd use the default too, can't remember which version that was :$

  4. $spacer_open
    $spacer_close
  5. #14
    Linux Enthusiast gruven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    541
    Yeah, I had heard it was the slowest, I think they corrected that in the 4.0.1 and 4.0.2 releases.

    4.1 is supposed to be even faster, so when it actually becomes stable enough to use on my desktop, I will invoke it, lol.

    Also, mplayer didn't have a problem compiling on the 3 computers I have here running GCC 4.0.2.

    Linux User #376741
    Code is Poetry

  6. #15
    Linux Newbie RobNyc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    NYC, USA
    Posts
    139
    back in march 2005 a friend online told me

    Many people like compiling for speed and/or file size. Once GCC team creates smarter/better compilers that can optimize based on the modern processor features like sse2/3 and 64-bitness, more people will consider compiling for speed gain.

    Right now I'm using new version of VLOS "gentoo based" and it has 4.0.1

  7. #16
    Linux Enthusiast Weedman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Tasmania, Australia
    Posts
    640
    does gentoo 2005.1-r1 come with gcc 4.*?
    "Time has more than one meaning, and is more than one dimension" - /.unknown
    --Registered Linux user #396583--

  8. #17
    Linux Guru Cabhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Seattle, WA, USA
    Posts
    3,252
    Weedman, during installation, you'd likely use the stable branch, which is 3.4.

    You can later switch to the unstable branches (which include gcc 4.*), but as I say, they are not perfectly stable yet.

  9. #18
    Linux Enthusiast gruven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    541
    Quote Originally Posted by Cabhan
    Weedman, during installation, you'd likely use the stable branch, which is 3.4.

    You can later switch to the unstable branches (which include gcc 4.*), but as I say, they are not perfectly stable yet.
    Actually, the install from the livecd and the stage tarballs still use 3.3.6. After you get everything installed, you would download whichever GCC version you wanted, and rebuild the toolchain and then rebuild the system with the rebuilt toolchain.

    Linux User #376741
    Code is Poetry

  10. #19
    Linux Enthusiast Weedman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Tasmania, Australia
    Posts
    640
    i just wanted to know cause of the so called "faster" compile times.

    thanks guys
    /weed
    "Time has more than one meaning, and is more than one dimension" - /.unknown
    --Registered Linux user #396583--

  11. #20
    Linux Engineer
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,431
    Quote Originally Posted by RobNyc
    Once GCC team creates smarter/better compilers that can optimize based on the modern processor features like sse2/3 and 64-bitness, more people will consider compiling for speed gain.
    I'm not sure I get what you mean, AFAIK GCC supports sse2/3 and 64-bit.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •