From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Ronald G. Minnich" <rminnich@lanl.gov>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] GCC3.0 [Was; Webbrowser]
In-Reply-To: <20030206182356.GC43123@mero.morphisms.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0302061409350.12974-100000@carotid.ccs.lanl.gov>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Date: Thu,  6 Feb 2003 14:09:46 -0700
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 52d235b8-eacb-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

On Thu, 6 Feb 2003, William K. Josephson wrote:

> 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.
>

that's the best part. Is a p4@2.4 ghz.

ron