Pending GCC-3.1 upgrade - do or don't

Gerard Beekmans gerard at
Wed May 8 08:07:59 PDT 2002

On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 10:19:08AM +0100, Ian Molton wrote:
> GCC3 may be more actively developed, but it isnt faster, doesnt produce
> better code (often worse), and isnt stable yet.

Ian, if you say that one more time I am going to ignore anything else you
have to say about this topic. It does produce faster code, I've given you a
bunch of examples, others have. Why don't you just accept that GCC-3 can
produce better code. To me it sounds like you have this idea in your head
that gcc-3 cannot possibly create anything faster than gcc-2 does and
you're not willing to even consider the possibility that we have actually
tested things. Let me say for the last time: my overall system performance
increase is 25% to 50% easily and I'm not just talking about C++ packages
(most of what I use is plain old C code). And it doesn't just "feel"
faster, it actually is faster. I timed it with a stopwatch the first time I
finished all the packages and things are physically faster.

No, I did not keep any timings so I can't give any numbers (I can give
estimates provided my memory still serves me correctly) but I will this
list some numbers when we're getting closer to an upgrade date (meaning
when gcc-3.1 is closer to a release date).

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