From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Thu,  6 Feb 2003 13:23:56 -0500
From: "William K. Josephson" <jkw@eecs.harvard.edu>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] GCC3.0 [Was; Webbrowser]
Message-ID: <20030206182356.GC43123@mero.morphisms.net>
References: <20030206181009.GA42953@mero.morphisms.net> <Pine.LNX.4.44.0302061114440.11322-100000@carotid.ccs.lanl.gov>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0302061114440.11322-100000@carotid.ccs.lanl.gov>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 5224f4e8-eacb-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 11:16:22AM -0700, Ronald G. Minnich wrote:

> Agree with most of your comments re gcc, but the fact is that
> counterexamples do in fact exist. In fact I believe that LLNLs latest
> LINPACK runs were better with gcc than the intel v7.0 compiler, which I
> think surprised *everybody*.

That does surprise me.  What is the target hardware?
I've found gcc 3.2's support for the Pentium 4 to be
rather atrocious.