lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Nov]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: 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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-11-18 23:46    [W:3.051 / U:0.116 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site