[rescue] Re: Being jobless

[Jonathan C. Patschke]

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Charles Shannon Hendrix wrote:

> I think a lot of the bloat is geared toward producing better code.

*sneeze*

> I'm running gcc 3.2 and it produces better code than the compiler 2
> years ago.

---snip---

> The binaries on my AMD Athlon system are now faster and smaller, so I'm
> having a hard time complaining right now.

That -is- my complaint.  The ONLY platform on which GCC has seen
significant improvement is x86.  Yeah, sure, they finally have 64-bit
SPARC support and 64-bit MIPS support but the code generated for those
platforms is still pessimized crap.

Also, I fully realize that some of that is due to the current popularity
that Linux/x86 enjoys, but all the world is not a Linux/x86 system.  In
fact, I've not used such a system in nearly two years.  By that token,
GCC isn't the right compiler for me, and people who code towards GCC
extensions don't make life particularly easy for me.

> Oh, and Intel doesn't support AMD instruction sets, or any other
> processor platform.

I'm shocked, really.  I'd have expected it to support AXP and UltraSPARC
II at the very least.  How dare Intel only support their own chips!

-- 
Jonathan Patschke   )  "We're Texans.  We figure out ways to do these
Elgin, TX          (    things..."                    --Bill Bradford