Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 22 Jun 2003 21:07:12 +0100 | From | John Bradford <> | Subject | Re: GCC speed (was [PATCH] Isapnp warning) |
| |
> No, the build system is OK. And ccache nicely fixes up any mistakes which > the build system makes, and distcc speeds things up by 2x to 3x. > > None of that gets around the fact that code needs to be tested with various > combinations of CONFIG_SMP, CONFIG_PREEMPT, different subarchitectures, > spinlock debugging, etc, etc. If the compiler is slow people don't bother > doing this and the code breaks. > > Cause and effect.
Are the benchmarks that show gcc 3.3 to be much slower at compile time being done with a natively compiled gcc 3.3? I.E. gcc 3.3 compiled with itself?
When I upgraded a few machines from 2.95.3 to 3.2.3, I noticed that the last of the three compiles, (I.E. a gcc-3.2.3 compiled gcc-3.2.3 compiling the gcc-3.2.3 source), was noticably quicker than the first two, to the extent that it was easily mesaurable by a wall clock.
I am just wondering whether there gcc-3.X binaries in use that were compiled with gcc-2.95.3, that are swaying benchmarks in favour of 2.95.3 compiled with itself.
I haven't benchmarked gcc-2.95.3 compiled with gcc-3.2.3, though.
John. - 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/
| |