Just a thought that popped into my head
spyro at armlinux.org
Tue May 7 09:16:12 PDT 2002
On Tue, 7 May 2002 07:43:21 -0400
Gerard Beekmans <gerard at linuxfromscratch.org> wrote:
> > and for the 'real evidence', read the gcc mailinglist. gcc 3 is up to 20% slower than 2.95.x in some cases, and not significantly faster in any others.
> Exactly, _some_ cases. What cases are they? I'm not going to read through a
> year's worth of email archives at GCC. I don't have the time. You come up
> with some URL's and I'll be more than happy to read them.
why do I need an URL? dont you believe me?
> My system is a lot _more_ responsive and _faster_ since I reinstalled every
> package using gcc-3.0.4 compared to gcc-2.95.3. That's my evidence. KDE2
> (and later KDE3) actually run smoothly for a change (and no guys, this was
> tested before I upgraded to my P4, all tested on my old Celeron 533).
Exact same package versions? ALL of them? even /one/ low level function change could speed up hundreds of tasks, potentially...
> > I think the 'significant case' here was mplayer, making some poor sods machine too slow for DVD playback, whilst 2.95.3 was just fast enough...
> That I cannot comment on as I don't have a DVD player. Define "poor sod"
> machine. Again if that's a minority from what most LFS'ers use, it's
> probably not going to be noticed.
It was a 333 or 366. not exactly 'shiny new', but if LFS cant perform as well as even redhat on one, then its a sad day for us...
I think we should stick to gcc 2.95.3 (maybe up that to 2.95.4), and have gcc *3* as the optional compiler, considering gcc *3* is the unstable one, by its authors own admission.
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-dev' in the subject header of the message
More information about the lfs-dev