Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 4 Nov 2004 11:38:47 -0800 (PST) | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Subject | Re: support of older compilers |
| |
On Thu, 4 Nov 2004, Adam Heath wrote: > > On Wed, 3 Nov 2004, Chris Wedgwood wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 05:06:56PM -0600, Adam Heath wrote: > > > > > You can't be serious that this is a problem. > > > > try it, say gcc 2.95 vs gcc 4.0 ... i think last i checked the older > > gcc was over twice as fast > > I didn't deny the speed difference of older and newer compilers. > > But why is this an issue when compiling a kernel? How often do you compile > your kernel?
First off, for some people that is literally where _most_ of the CPU cycles go.
Second, it's not just that the compilers are slower. Historically, new gcc versions are: - slower - generate worse code - buggier
For a _long_ time, the only reason to upgrade gcc was literally C++ support: basic C support was getting _worse_ with new compilers in pretty much every regard.
Things seem to have improved a bit lately. The gcc-3.x series was basically not worth it for plain C until 3.3 or so.
Linus - 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/
| |