Re: [boost] Re: Re: Re: Re: New patch for operators.hpp uploaded

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-23 11:30:26

Daniel Frey <d.frey_at_[hidden]> writes:

> On Wed, 23 Oct 2002 01:56:27 +0200, Daniel Frey wrote:
> 
> >> gcc-3.0.4
> >> XC
> >> XCC
> 
> [snip]
> 
> >> cwpro7.2:
> >> XC
> >> XCC
> > 
> > What the ***? Have you applied any basic optimization level? Something
> > similar to -O2 for the gcc?

Save your outrage. This is a very old compiler.

> This comment applies to the gcc-3.0.4, too. At least I'm not
> biased... ;)

Yeah y'are. Look at the progression for gcc again. Things got *worse*
with the 3.0 series before they fixed it for 3.1 or 3.2.

> And indeed the newer version of the cwpro seem to be *much* better...
> 
> >> cwpro8.3:
> >> X
> >> X
> > 
> > Ah, another cool compiler :)
> 
> Regards, Daniel
> 
> (I think it's too late for me as I'm writing more and more rubbish.
> I should better go to bed now. Good night! :)

P'raps. Sweet dreams.

-- 
                    David Abrahams
dave_at_[hidden] * http://www.boost-consulting.com
Building C/C++ Extensions for Python: Dec 9-11, Austin, TX
http://www.enthought.com/training/building_extensions.html