lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Feb]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: gcc 2.95 vs 3.21 performance
From
Date
On Mon, 2003-02-03 at 22:54, Denis Vlasenko wrote:
snip

>
> I'm afraid it's code generation engine. It is just worse than
> M$ or Intel's one. It is not easily fixable,
> GCC folks have tremendous task at hand.
>
> I wonder whether some big companies supposedly supporting
> Linux (e.g. Intel) can help GCC team (for example by giving
> away some code and/or developer time).
> --

I'm hesitant to enter into this. But from my own experience
the issue with big companies supporting these sort of changes
in gcc have more to do with the acceptance process of changes
into gcc than a lack of desire on the large companies part.

Tim

> vda
> -
> 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/
--
Timothy D. Witham - Lab Director - wookie@osdlab.org
Open Source Development Lab Inc - A non-profit corporation
15275 SW Koll Parkway - Suite H - Beaverton OR, 97006
(503)-626-2455 x11 (office) (503)-702-2871 (cell)
(503)-626-2436 (fax)

-
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: 2005-03-22 13:32    [W:0.151 / U:0.996 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site