Yesh. I think that's rather extreme. gcc has been working very well for me on my sparc machines. The only problem as far as perl goes, is that perl will need to be compiled with gcc in order for binary modules (also compiled with gcc) to link in.
Sun's compiler is optimised for sparc processors, and can compile 64bit elf binaries, the stable gcc compiles 32 bit and may produce less efficient binaries. I can't say how much performance would be gained or lost either way; I haven't done any benchmarking.
Perhaps some other monks have done some testing...
| [reply] |
Sun's compilers install in /opt by default, so there's no reason that you couldn't have both (sun cc and gcc) working on the same machine. But if you're only using the compiler for CPAN modules, then it is a huge waste of money.
BlueLines
Disclaimer: This post may contain inaccurate information, be habit forming, cause atomic warfare between peaceful countries, speed up male pattern baldness, interfere with your cable reception, exile you from certain third world countries, ruin your marriage, and generally spoil your day. No batteries included, no strings attached, your mileage may vary. | [reply]
[d/l] |
While there is a performance gain Sun's cc and supporting libs often don't play nice with CPAN modules or Perl source install's. Especially on development boxes gcc is the way to go. You may want to point out that the increased code performance isn't going to do much about the usual bottlenecks like io and other connectivity issues
Rebuilding the codebase with Sun's C++ when moving code out of development might be the better solution. This allows the greatest speed to market for the code development via good 'ol reliable gcc, plus saves a fortune on Sun licensing.
coreolyn
| [reply] |
Talking with several of our admins here here, the only issue we have seen with gcc has been trying to compile bind 9 series.
We have both versions, however for the limited amount of stuff we ever compile, we usually use gcc. | [reply] |
