About gcc

About gcc

[董浩]

hi:

   Our project would be platform independence,but the most user's platform is win32. We don't like ms$'s vc7,So we want to use gcc to compiler it under win32.We would use only ANSI c.
Then my questions are:
1.Our project is commercial.Must we open the source?
2.Which is more efficient,the binary compilered by vc7 or by win32 gcc? After all,vc7 comes from the OS's manufacturer~~~~~~~~~~~

      thanks!
　　

regards
 				
　　　　　　　　　　　　　　董浩(Houston)
　　　　　　　　　　　　　　dh@yamido.com
　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　2002-06-11

Re: About gcc

[mike stump]

> Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 10:25:37 +0800
> From: =?GB2312?Q?=B6=AD=BA=C6(Houston)?= <dh@yamido.com>
> To: "gcc@gnu.org" <gcc@gnu.org>

> Our project would be platform independent, but the most user's
> platform is win32.  We don't like ms$'s vc7, so we want to use gcc
> to compile it under win32.  We would use only ANSI C.

Ok.

> Then my questions are:
> 
> 1.  Our project is commercial.  Must we open the source?

No.  For example, you can use mingw32.

> 2.  Which is more efficient, the binary compilered by vc7 or by
> win32 gcc?

You'd have to benchmark your own application under both to determine
that.  I suspect quite a few programs are within 5% either way.  5% is
like asking, what is faster, a 1.8GHz machine or 1.89GHz machine.  The
answer is, a 2.0 GHz machine is faster, no matter.

Re: About gcc

[Tim Prince]

On Monday 10 June 2002 19:38, mike stump wrote:
> > Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 10:25:37 +0800
> > From: =?GB2312?Q?=B6=AD=BA=C6(Houston)?= <dh@yamido.com>
> > To: "gcc@gnu.org" <gcc@gnu.org>
> >
> > Our project would be platform independent, but the most user's
> > platform is win32.  We don't like ms$'s vc7, so we want to use gcc
> > to compile it under win32.  We would use only ANSI C.
>
> Ok.
>
> > Then my questions are:
> >
> > 1.  Our project is commercial.  Must we open the source?
>
> No.  For example, you can use mingw32.
>
> > 2.  Which is more efficient, the binary compilered by vc7 or by
> > win32 gcc?
>
> You'd have to benchmark your own application under both to determine
> that.  I suspect quite a few programs are within 5% either way.  5% is
> like asking, what is faster, a 1.8GHz machine or 1.89GHz machine.  The
> answer is, a 2.0 GHz machine is faster, no matter.

When using floating point, it's not unusual to see a current gcc 25% faster 
running than the much older msvc, provided that attention is paid to issues 
such as data alignment.  Since those qualifications rule out the majority of 
applications, Mike is no doubt correct.  gcc also has the 
advantage, should you choose to work within standards, of accepting more 
portable code, as well as running on a much wider variety of targets.  A 
further performance boost might be seen with other commercial compilers, such 
as Intel's.  

-- 
Tim Prince

Re: About gcc

[Manuel López-Ibáñez]

On 20/06/06, Roberto COSTA <roberto.costa@st.com> wrote:
> Hello Manuel,
> three people may have given witty replies... isn't a smile worth that?
> I'm also new to the list, and I respect it as a place for meaningful
> discussions. At the same time, I'm not against any genuine and
> spontaneous humour that may arise from time to time among such serious
> matters.
>

OK, I understand that and I guess that if my opinion is minority, I
should have taken my own measures to not see more posts from this
thread. Unfortunately, I don't see an easy way to do that in Gmail, of
course that is my problem, where is Gmail's bugzilla? ;-).

Apologies to everybody who really enjoy multiple witty replies, I have
certainly replied that way  more than once in several lists.

> By the way, since you wanted "to give some reply or advice to the
> original submitter", why did you send this post to the list, publicly? :-)

Well, I didn't. I just wanted to stop receiving emails mocking a guy
that may be a jerk or may simply be very confused. But, anyway, it
seems my opinion is not shared and I should have found my own way to
kill the thread.

Apologies again and please forgive this as an error from my side while
learning the synergies of GCC and forget it, so it doesn't become a
meta-thread.

Cheers,

Manuel.

Re: About gcc

[Roberto COSTA]

Hello Manuel,
three people may have given witty replies... isn't a smile worth that?
I'm also new to the list, and I respect it as a place for meaningful 
discussions. At the same time, I'm not against any genuine and 
spontaneous humour that may arise from time to time among such serious 
matters.

By the way, since you wanted "to give some reply or advice to the 
original submitter", why did you send this post to the list, publicly? :-)

Cheers,
Roberto


Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> (I am new in the list, so I understand that my opinion should not be
> taken as seriously as others.)
> 
> Three persons have already given witty replies. I think most of us got
> the point with the first one. Is it necessary to spend more time
> reading emails about this? If you want to give some reply or advice to
> the original submitter, that is more than fine with me, but, please,
> don't copy the mail list.
> 
> Best regards to all,
> 
> Manuel.

Re: About gcc

[Manuel López-Ibáñez]

(I am new in the list, so I understand that my opinion should not be
taken as seriously as others.)

Three persons have already given witty replies. I think most of us got
the point with the first one. Is it necessary to spend more time
reading emails about this? If you want to give some reply or advice to
the original submitter, that is more than fine with me, but, please,
don't copy the mail list.

Best regards to all,

Manuel.

RE: About gcc

[Dave Korn]

On 20 June 2006 10:08, Gunnar Sjoo wrote:

> According to your proposal, I hereby send my comments referring to your web
> pages about downloading gcc. To me, your instructions are absolutely
> impossible to understand, they could not be more impossible to understand if
> they were written in Hebroe or Mandarin.

  The language in question is called "English".  It's quite well known, but I
do agree that Mandarin is a far more widely-spoken language.

>       I will not recommend you to write your instructions in a language,
> which can be understood by common people, because I understand that you are
> unable to do that

  How did you work that out?  Or did you just make it up out of your
imagination?

> , I can only state, that downloading gcc is impossible to
> me. Better to learn something easier, like solving Einstein's general field
> equations.

  Gcc is never going to be suitable for people who don't know a bit about
programming computers, but then again, since it's a tool for programming
computers, and it's only use is programming computers, that's not necessarily
a restriction.

  Now, if you actually have some serious suggestion about how the website
could be made more clear, it could be implemented.  But you haven't even
bothered to tell us /what/ was so difficult to understand.  If all you want to
do is demonstrate your skills at writing sarcasm, alt.creative.writing is over
---> thataway.


    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....

Re: About gcc

[Roberto COSTA]

Gunnar Sjoo wrote:
> According to your proposal, I hereby send my comments referring to your web 
> pages about downloading gcc. To me, your instructions are absolutely 
> impossible to understand, they could not be more impossible to understand if 
> they were written in Hebroe or Mandarin. 
>       I will not recommend you to write your instructions in a language, which 
> can be understood by common people, because I understand that you are unable 
> to do that, I can only state, that downloading gcc is impossible to me. 
> Better to learn something easier, like solving Einstein's general field 
> equations.

Hello,
after carefully decyphering your post, it looks like the finality of GNU 
project is not completely clear to you.
I suggest you to have an educational lecture in a language that you 
understand better:
http://www.gnu.org/home.he.html
http://www.gnu.org/home.cn.html

:-)

Cheers,
Roberto

Re: About gcc

[Paolo Carlini]

Gunnar Sjoo wrote:

>Better to learn something easier, like solving Einstein's general field 
>equations.
>  
>
If that is *really* the case, then probably you should now waste time on 
gcc and instead try yourself on quantum gravity or string theory ;) ;)

Paolo.

About gcc

[Gunnar Sjoo]

According to your proposal, I hereby send my comments referring to your web 
pages about downloading gcc. To me, your instructions are absolutely 
impossible to understand, they could not be more impossible to understand if 
they were written in Hebroe or Mandarin. 
      I will not recommend you to write your instructions in a language, which 
can be understood by common people, because I understand that you are unable 
to do that, I can only state, that downloading gcc is impossible to me. 
Better to learn something easier, like solving Einstein's general field 
equations.

Yours sincerely
Gunnar Sjoo
      


--
-----    PROMOCJA - 180 dni gratis!    -----
   12GB powierzhchni, konta e-mail b.o.,
 transfer az 600 GB.     http://www.alpha.pl
--------------------------------------------