Problem with regression tests getting stuck
paulm at astro.gla.ac.uk
Wed Sep 4 08:23:10 CDT 2002
On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, [iso-8859-1] Sylvain Petreolle wrote:
> I tested wine with 3 different compilers at this time:
> - orignial RedHat's gcc 2.96 (The_Bad_Thing);
> - gcc3 patched to hell Redhat gcc 3.1 (better but not good)
> - gcc 3.2 from gcc.gnu.org tarball "The source, Luke." ;)
> 2.96 doesn't pass the tests,
> 3.1 too,
> 3.2 from source passes.
> (and I did a _bunch_ of tests.)
Ok, I'll go for pristine 3.2 gcc when I get a moment.
> > Besides, too often I've seen some completely wacky behaviour of
> > seemingly
> > innocuous code (which I was convinced was because of compiler-error)
> > only
> > for some subtle code-related bug to turn out to be the culprit.
> > That said, gcc-2.96 was/is a completely fscked up "release" of gcc.
> if you want to say "fucked up", I'm ok (ask to mplayer.hq.hu guys ;))
> if you want to say it's clean, I don't agree in any point.
The first: a complete fuck-up. Specifically, when they released RH7.0 w/
gcc "v2.96" the Alpha version was truly awful. Many rather critical
(networking) RPM packages just didn't work. But, simply recompiling using
a proper version of gcc seemed to solved the problem ...
> > > (even if gcc 3.2 is a bit slower to compile wine;))
> > How much of a performance hit do you suffer here?
> described by gcc team (and others), gcc 3.2 is about 5% slower than 3.0
> (don't know why)
Ok, that's not too bad.
More information about the wine-devel