Pending GCC-3.1 upgrade - do or don't

Gerard Beekmans gerard at
Tue May 7 12:27:21 PDT 2002

Oh and on the issue it being slower:

I still stand by findings: it compiles slower (which is supposedly going to
be fixed soon too) but the final product runs faster. I didn't think X and
KDE-3 could run that responsively on my Celeron 533 until I recompiled the
whole thing (X and KDE-3, QT-3.0.3 and other things). KDE startup times
decreased by about 10 seconds, Konqueror and other QT apps startup a lot
faster now (Konqueror used to take about 30 seconds, it's down to about
15-20 now).

If it takes gcc-3 twice the time to compile something compared to
gcc-2.95.3, but the end product performs better, then there is nothing in
my mind that will even consider still using gcc-2.95.3. I'm willing to wait
the extra time to get a faster system. The compile time is a one-time
thing so you'll win back a lot more time in the long run.

Gerard Beekmans

-*- If Linux doesn't have the solution, you have the wrong problem -*-
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-dev' in the subject header of the message

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list