Let's use gcc-4.2, not 4.1 -- OpenMP

[Scott Long]

Steve Kargl wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 02:50:30PM +1030, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
> 
>>On Friday 15 December 2006 05:50, Scott Long wrote:
>>
>>>Yes, the industry moves fast, but that's no reason to fool ourselves
>>>into thinking that the FSF will support GCC 4.2 a day after they release
>>>4.3 and start working on 4.4.  Your point above about the lifespan of
>>>FreeBSD 7.x is a valid one, and I agree that it should be a
>>>consideration.  Vendor support is a myth and should not be a
>>>consideration.
>>
>>Not to mention it is *trivial* to install a compiler using ports or packages.
>>
>>If you are serious about high performance computing installing a new compiler 
>>is about the lowest barrier you'll find.
>>
> 
> 
> Actually, 4.1.x will produce much worse code than 3.4.6.
> You can search the gcc mail listings for extensive comparison
> by Clinton Whaley (the author of math/atlas) for details.
> 

Has this been fixed in GCC 4.2?  If the FSF claims to have fixed it,
has it been actually verified?  I thought that gcc 4 was supposed to 
solve the world's problems with vectorization.

Scott