Just a thought that popped into my head
bdubbs at swbell.net
Tue May 7 10:25:43 PDT 2002
Ian Molton wrote:
> 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?
Trust, but verify.
>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
>by its authors own admission.
I went to http://gcc.gnu.org/releases.html and they certainly don't
indicate that 3.04 is "unstable".
I just did a benchmark that does indicate that 3.04 is slower in compile
speed. I did a chroot to a partition that is set up with gcc 3.04 and
went to the jpeg source directory.
root:/usr/src/jpeg-6b# gcc --version
and from another window
[root at lfs3 /mnt/lfs2/usr/src/jpeg-6b]# gcc --version
[root at lfs3 /mnt/lfs2/usr/src/jpeg-6b]#
This does indicate a 16% increase in compile time, but unless you are
compiling glibc, xfree86, or kde a lot, this probably is not a big issue.
I suppose someone needs to do some benchmarks on execution speed, but
that is much more difficult because of the combinations of optimizations
and the sensitivity of the benchmarks to the type of code being compiled.
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