Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 22 Jun 2003 18:05:55 -0700 | From | Larry McVoy <> | Subject | Re: GCC speed (was [PATCH] Isapnp warning) |
| |
If you think 3.[23] are slow, go back and compile with 2.7.2 - it's much faster than the later versions. I used to yank newer versions of gcc off systems and put 2.7.2 on, I think it was close to 2x faster at compilation and made no difference on BK performance.
On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 10:32:51AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > Daniel Phillips <phillips@arcor.de> wrote: > > > > As for compilation speed, yes, that sucks. I doubt there's any rational > > reason for it, but I also agree with the idea that correctness and binary > > code performance should come first, then the compilation speed issue should > > be addressed. > > No. Compilation inefficiency directly harms programmer efficiency and the > quality and volume of code the programmer produces. These are surely the > most important things by which a toolchain's usefulness should be judged. > > I compile with -O1 all the time and couldn't care the teeniest little bit > about the performance of the generated code - it just doesn't matter. > > I'm happy allowing those thousands of people who do not compile kernels all > the time to shake out any 3.2/3.3 compilation problems. > > > Compilation inefficiency is the most serious thing wrong with gcc. > > - > 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/
-- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm - 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/
| |