[lkml]   [2003]   [Feb]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: gcc 2.95 vs 3.21 performance

> >> 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
Worst form of spam? Adding advertisment signatures ala
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
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:33    [W:0.131 / U:2.632 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site