Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!romp!auschs!d75!awdprime!stingray.austin.ibm.com!marc
From: marc@stingray.austin.ibm.com (Marc J. Stephenson/140000;1C-22)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.aix
Subject: Re: BASH and GCC
Message-ID: <5737@awdprime.UUCP>
Date: 5 Mar 91 14:48:31 GMT
References: <1274@dkunix9.dk.oracle.com> <2547@sirius.ucs.adelaide.edu.au>
Sender: news@awdprime.UUCP
Distribution: comp.unix.aix
Organization: IBM AWD, Austin
Lines: 29

In article <2547@sirius.ucs.adelaide.edu.au> john@chook.ua.oz (John Warburton) writes:
>From article <1274@dkunix9.dk.oracle.com>, by bengsig@dk.oracle.com (Bjorn Engsig):
>
>> If anybody has gcc running, does it produce better code (in any way) than
>> xlc -O?
>
>Well that is rather amusing in its own right. We have been told (in Australia)
>that the optimiser for the compiler does not work (hence the OS is not optimised
>code), so the beauty of gcc is made even better as it would most probably
>be the only optimising compiler for the RS6000.
>

This is blatant misinformation.  With few exceptions, the operating
system, commands, libraries, and LPPs are compiled optimized.  Looking right
at the output from a build, the only things that I could find in the base
which were not compiled optimized were diagnostic test units, which could 
easily be affected by timing.

There may have been some time during development of AIX 3.1 where it was 
necessary to build the system unoptimized, but I could not verify that.
This has certainly not been the case for any version of AIX 3.1 which has
been available to the general public.

What you have been told (in Australia) is incorrect.

-- 
Marc Stephenson		      IBM PSPA (Personal System Programming - Austin,TX)
DISCLAIMER: The content of this posting is independent of official IBM position.
marc@stingray.austin.ibm.com 	VNET: MARC at AUSVMQ  	IBM T/L: 793-3796