Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 24 Nov 2001 17:01:55 +0100 (CET) | From | Luigi Genoni <> | Subject | Re: Which gcc version? |
| |
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: > > > At 13:51 23/11/01, war wrote: > > > >You should use gcc-2.95.3. > > > > > > That's not true. gcc-2.96 as provided with RedHat 7.2 is perfectly fine. > > > > > > 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
Luigi
- 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/
| |