| 1 |
No, I'm not. :) |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
the "benchmark" as such was in response to peoples questions on wether |
| 4 |
gcc3.0 was faster or slower during compilation than gcc2.9 |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
For my own use, I think the results are well worth it now with gcc |
| 7 |
3.0.4, especially since gcc now can be used to compile the kernel ;) |
| 8 |
(bugfix in gcc304) |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
please take this the right way, I'm well aware of the improved results |
| 11 |
of gcc3 compared to gcc 2.9 , and why the slowdowns occur. (Check the |
| 12 |
memory usage of -Wall and other things and you'll be surprised) |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
//Spider |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
begin quote |
| 19 |
On 07 Apr 2002 23:00:55 -0600 |
| 20 |
Stacey Keast <slik@×××××××××××.net> wrote: |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 20:46, Spider wrote: |
| 23 |
> <snip> |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> Of course it is going to take gcc3 longer to compile things with the |
| 26 |
> new profiling code (see http://gcc.gnu.org/news/profiledriven.html) |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> All this basically is is the compiler running through code branches |
| 29 |
> and identifying blocks which should be optimized to produce faster |
| 30 |
> EXECUTABLES, this does not come at the price of faster COMPILE TIMES, |
| 31 |
> as the compiler has to build these profiles to do more advanced |
| 32 |
> optimizations. So, you are really benchmarking the wrong thing here. |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> _______________________________________________ |
| 35 |
> gentoo-dev mailing list |
| 36 |
> gentoo-dev@g.o |
| 37 |
> http://lists.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
-- |
| 41 |
begin happy99.exe |
| 42 |
This is a .signature virus! Please copy me into your .signature! |
| 43 |
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information. |
| 44 |
end |
Archives