[lkml]   [2003]   [Feb]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: gcc 2.95 vs 3.21 performance

On Wed, 5 Feb 2003, Pavel [iso-8859-2] Janík wrote:
> Hi Linus,
> > lcc isn't really something I want to use, since the license is so
> > strange, and thus can't be improved upon if there are issues with it.
> what is the difference between compiler and source management system
> regarding licenses and improvements?

You snipped the part where I said that the intel compiler is likely to be
more interesting to a number of people, since it's at a higher level. So
no, I'm not religious about licenses.

But the real issue is "does it do what we want it to do?" and "do we have
a choice?". There are no open-source SCM's that work for me. But there
_is_ an open-source compiler that does work for me. At which point the
license matters - simply because there is choice in the matter.

Gcc mostly works. But it's slower then I'd like. And it prioritizes things
I don't care about. And competition is always good. So I would definitely
love to see some alternatives.

And if you have issues with BK, maybe you can try to encourage the SCM
people to see why I consider BK to not even have alternatives right now.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:32    [W:0.079 / U:5.148 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site