lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Nov]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: Which gcc version?
    Date
    On November 24, 2001 05:01 pm, Luigi Genoni wrote:
    > On Fri, 23 Nov 2001, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
    > > At 18:30 23/11/01, Daniel Phillips wrote:
    > > >On November 23, 2001 02:59 pm, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
    > > > > gcc-3x OTOH is not a good idea at the moment.
    > > >
    > > >Do you have any particular reason for saying that?
    > >
    > > I haven't done any measurements myself but from what I have read, gcc-3.x
    > > produces significantly slower code than gcc-2.96. I know I should try
    > > myself some time... but if that is indeed true that is a very good reason
    > > to stick with gcc-2.96.
    >
    > I did some serious bench.
    > On all my codes, using eavilly floating point computation, binaries
    > built with gcc 3.0.2 are about 5% slower that the ones built with 2.95.3
    > on athlon processor with athlon optimizzations.
    > On the other side, on sparclinux, same codes compiled with gcc 3.0.2 are
    > really faster, about 20%, that with 2.95.3

    Interesting, but not as interesting as knowing what the results are for
    non-fp code, since we are talking about kernel compilation.

    --
    Daniel
    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:13    [W:0.021 / U:1.080 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site