Messages in this thread |  | | From | Daniel Phillips <> | Subject | Re: Which gcc version? | Date | Sat, 24 Nov 2001 17:09:27 +0100 |
| |
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.
-- Daniel - 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/
|  |