Pending GCC-3.1 upgrade - do or don't

Chris Lingard chris at
Tue May 7 12:52:23 PDT 2002

Gerard Beekmans wrote:

> 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).

When did qt and KDE-3 start compiling with gcc-3.1?  Have not tried
for a week or so.  Any patches required, as this was the only thing
stopping me building a complete system?

Have got gcc-3.1 with Ada and Java and want to try the 'just in time'
Java stuff, and maybe play with an Ada system.

> 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.

Yes, this is a difficult concept to get across

Build time and Run time are not related or proportional


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