Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Sat, 24 Nov 2001 18:32:12 +0100 (CET) | From | Luigi Genoni <> | Subject | Re: Which gcc version? |
| |
On Sat, 24 Nov 2001, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> 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. > on sparc64 nor gcc 2.95.3 nor 3.0.2 can be used to compile the kernel, at less for what i know, you have to stay with egcs 64 bit compiler.
- 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/
|  |