From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-152082-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 4699 invoked by alias); 10 Mar 2009 00:16:54 -0000
Received: (qmail 4691 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Mar 2009 00:16:53 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.6 required=5.0 	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from e23smtp04.au.ibm.com (HELO e23smtp04.au.ibm.com) (202.81.31.146)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 10 Mar 2009 00:16:43 +0000
Received: from d23relay02.au.ibm.com (d23relay02.au.ibm.com [202.81.31.244]) 	by e23smtp04.au.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n2A0EjV5010087 	for <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>; Tue, 10 Mar 2009 11:14:45 +1100
Received: from d23av04.au.ibm.com (d23av04.au.ibm.com [9.190.235.139]) 	by d23relay02.au.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v9.2) with ESMTP id n2A0Gt7d884848 	for <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>; Tue, 10 Mar 2009 11:16:56 +1100
Received: from d23av04.au.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) 	by d23av04.au.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id n2A0Gbng001637 	for <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>; Tue, 10 Mar 2009 11:16:38 +1100
Received: from ozlabs.au.ibm.com (ozlabs.au.ibm.com [9.190.163.12]) 	by d23av04.au.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n2A0Gbt6001633; 	Tue, 10 Mar 2009 11:16:37 +1100
Received: from [10.61.2.144] (haven.au.ibm.com [9.190.164.82]) 	(using SSLv3 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) 	(Client did not present a certificate) 	by ozlabs.au.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 883AA73692; 	Tue, 10 Mar 2009 11:16:32 +1100 (EST)
Subject: Re: The gcc-in-cxx branch now completes bootstrap
From: Ben Elliston <bje@au1.ibm.com>
To: "Kaveh R. GHAZI" <ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu>
Cc: Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com>, gcc@gcc.gnu.org
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0903071009430.19909@caipclassic.rutgers.edu>
References: <m3eixa9hlq.fsf@google.com> 	 <Pine.GSO.4.58.0903071009430.19909@caipclassic.rutgers.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 04:27:00 -0000
Message-Id: <1236644191.26872.0.camel@helios>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2009-03/txt/msg00215.txt.bz2

> I'm curious whether there are any detectable differences in the resulting
> compiler when built with g++ rather than gcc.  E.g. testsuite regressions,
> changes in the speed or size of cc1, etc.  Also, is cc1 linked with
> libstdc++.so ?  Stuff like that.

Also, is there any significant difference in bootstrap times?

Ben