lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Nov]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: support of older compilers


On Thu, 4 Nov 2004, Adam Heath wrote:
>
> On Wed, 3 Nov 2004, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 05:06:56PM -0600, Adam Heath wrote:
> >
> > > You can't be serious that this is a problem.
> >
> > try it, say gcc 2.95 vs gcc 4.0 ... i think last i checked the older
> > gcc was over twice as fast
>
> I didn't deny the speed difference of older and newer compilers.
>
> But why is this an issue when compiling a kernel? How often do you compile
> your kernel?

First off, for some people that is literally where _most_ of the CPU
cycles go.

Second, it's not just that the compilers are slower. Historically, new gcc
versions are:
- slower
- generate worse code
- buggier

For a _long_ time, the only reason to upgrade gcc was literally C++
support: basic C support was getting _worse_ with new compilers in pretty
much every regard.

Things seem to have improved a bit lately. The gcc-3.x series was
basically not worth it for plain C until 3.3 or so.

Linus
-
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: 2009-11-18 23:46    [W:0.383 / U:0.008 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site