Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 7 Feb 2003 17:09:55 +0100 | From | Pavel Machek <> | Subject | Re: gcc 2.95 vs 3.21 performance |
| |
Hi!
> >> 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. > > > >Maybe we should create a KGCC fork, optimise it for kernel > >complilations, then try to get our changes merged back in to GCC > >mainline at a later date. > > That's not really the problem. > > I think the problem with gcc is that many of the developers are actually > much more interested in Ada or C++ (or even Fortran!), than in plain > old-fashioned C. So it's not a kernel issue per se, gcc is slow to > compile _any_ C project. > > And a lot of the optimizations gcc does aren't even interesting to most > C projects. Most "old-fashioned" C projects tend to be written in ways > that mean that the most important optimizations are the truly trivial > ones, and then doing good register allocation. > > I'd love to see a small - and fast - C compiler, and I'd be willing to > make kernel changes to make it work with it.
What about gcc-1.4 or something like that? If you go back in time, you'll find gcc is getting smaller and faster ;-). Actually making kernel compile with gcc-2.7.2 should make it few times faster than gcc-3.2... Pavel -- Worst form of spam? Adding advertisment signatures ala sourceforge.net. What goes next? Inserting advertisment *into* email? - 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/
| |