[lkml]   [2003]   [Feb]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [Lse-tech] gcc 2.95 vs 3.21 performance
>  > People keep extolling the virtues of gcc 3.2 to me, which I'm
> > reluctant to switch to, since it compiles so much slower. But
> > it supposedly generates better code, so I thought I'd compile
> > the kernel with both and compare the results. This is gcc 2.95
> > and 3.2.1 from debian unstable on a 16-way NUMA-Q. The kernbench
> > tests still use 2.95 for the compile-time stuff.
> >
> > The results below leaves me distinctly unconvinced by the supposed
> > merits of modern gcc's. Not really better or worse, within experimental
> > error. But much slower to compile things with.
> What kernel was kernbench compiling ? The reason I'm asking is that
> 2.5s (and more recent 2.4.21pre's) will use -march flags for more
> aggressive optimisation on newer gcc's.
> If you want to compare apples to apples, make sure you choose
> something like i386 in the processor menu, and then it'll always
> use -march=i386 instead of getting fancy with things like -march=pentium4

Kernbench compiles 2.4.17, because I'm old, slow and lazy, and that
was what was around when I started doing this test ;-)

But the point is still the same ... even if it is doing more agressive
optimisation, it's not actually buying us anything (at least for the kernel)


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:32    [W:0.110 / U:4.224 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site