lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Feb]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: gcc-2.95.3 vs gcc-3.0.4
On Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 09:22:18PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:

> Larry McVoy wrote:
> >
> > Try 2.72, it's almost twice as fast as 2.95 for builds. For BK, at least,
> > we don't see any benefit from the slower compiler, the code runs the same
> > either way.
> >
>
> Amen.
>
> I want 2.7.2.3 back, but it was the name:value struct initialiser
> bug which killed that off. 2.91.66 isn't much slower than 2.7.x,
> and it's what I use.
>
> "almost twice as fast"? That means that 2.7.2 vs 3.x is getting
> up to a 3x difference. Does anyone know why?

Me too. Everybody says "it's the final code that matters", but a lot of
us would be more productive if the thing would just compile faster. I've
done the same (used 2723 during development/debugging) and it helped
quite a lot.

I remember Borland Turbo Pascal's compiler... Yes, yes, but that thing
compiled insane amounts of code in split seconds on 386 hardware.

Simon-

[ Stormix Technologies Inc. ][ NetNation Communications Inc. ]
[ sim@stormix.com ][ sim@netnation.com ]
[ Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of my employers. ]
-
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 13:24    [W:0.104 / U:17.440 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site