Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Sun, 30 Sep 2001 17:59:23 +0200 (CEST) | From | Luigi Genoni <> | Subject | Re: 2 GB file limitation |
| |
I would be interested to know on which processor your are seeing those results. In fact i do not have doubts that on somethuing like an alpha gcc 3.0.2 is faster. Maybe it could be faster also on PIV, I do not know. I never tried gcc 3.0.2, i just used gcc 3.0.1 on Athlon systems, but I am going to gcc 3.0.2 snapshots as soon.
Luigi
On Sun, 30 Sep 2001, [iso-8859-2] Gábor Lénárt wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 04:59:49AM -0400, safemode wrote: > > > Yes, gcc3 is (well at least NOW) a piece of shit. It produces BIGGER and > > > SLOWER binaries ... Checked on: Athlon, AMD K6-2. > > > With the same gcc command line ... > > > > gcc 3.0.2 produces lame binaries that are 45 seconds faster encoding > > 74minutes of audio than the gcc 2.95.4 binaries with the same cflags. > > gcc 2.95.4 produces a binary of 39432 bytes when gcc 3.0.2 with the same > > flags on the same source produces a binary of 37452 bytes. I then tested it > > with lame. gcc 2.95.4 produced a binary of 245664 bytes and 3.0.2 produced > > one of 238016 bytes. Same exact cflags and settings. > > So basically my testing absolutely contradicts your statement. So who is > > right? >
- 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/
|  |