Re: gEDA-user: Icarus Verilog building from CVS

[Joshua Boyd <jdboyd@jdboyd.net>]

On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 06:31:16PM +0200, Lars Segerlund wrote:
 
>  I know that there have been some issues that are only recently
>  started to get resolved for the sh3/h8 and similar CPU's, ( there
>  have been some noice about it on the gcc developer list ). 

>  There have been a bit of discussion about different flags, since some
>  thought the compiler generated some lousy code, when this was easily
>  cured to the extent on going par on par with the intel compiler which
>  I think is a good result. ( discussion on gcc.gnu.org ). 
> 
>  Now since you're using 3.2 I think you will find quite a lot has
>  changed recently, I think 3.2 is capable of doing some really dumb
>  register allocations for the sh and also some stupid things with
>  inlining. 

I will have to start searching the archives.  We (on the software side
that is) are a bit between projects, so we are using the time to update
our linux workstations, compilers, and embeded OS (we use ecos.  We've
found bugs in the 2.0 version that were fixed in the cvs version.  But,
we are using an old CVS snapshot, and I want to get a newer snapshot
tested).
  
>  If I were you I would probably try 3.5 from cvs on my local account,
>  I would be a bit wary about the sh support in a release which had
>  undergone so big changes, but I am using it right now on x86, alpha,
>  amd64 with good results, ( I need fortran 95 thus I have to use 3.5
>  ), but not whitout the odd hurdle. 
>  In my experience the 3.5 version goes between better than 3.4 and a
>  lot of regressions in cycles :-) .... ( I always keep a working copy
>  and one to check out :-) ). 

I will search for the information on getting 3.5 and give it a shot.

I'm not a fortran programmer, but I'm very happy to hear about a fortran
newer than 77 finally being supported.  I hadn't heard anything about
activity on that front.
 
>  I do believe that our different opinions stems from the slight
>  difference of perspective of one using the compiler, and someone who
>  is quite involved in the compiler and actively pursuing it's
>  developement, ( thus totally blind for any blemishes that might hit
>  the unsuspecting user :-) ).... 

I personally like GCC and I want it to be the best I can be.  I'm very
excited about the 3.5 notes you've been sharing.
 
>  Oh, I almost forgot there is an ongoing drive to reduce compile time
>  performance regressions :-) ... 

That is good, but not a major issue with me.