alwagner at tcac.net
Mon May 27 08:49:52 PDT 2002
On Monday 27 May 2002 06:05 am, you wrote:
> Am Montag, 27. Mai 2002 06:37 schrieben Sie:
> > Other than just being first-on-the-block, what are the advantages of
> > gcc-3.1 over gcc-2.95.3?
> > Sounds spooky to me.
Because I don't see the advantages. The main question of my post was a
request for a summary of discussed advantages. It's spooky because I haven't
yet seen any such list.
> > What about those of us who don't know how to turn a compile error into a
> > patch and yet find ourselves needing packages that no one here has any
> > need for or experience with?
> I guess that all actively maintained projects will make their source
> compile with gcc-3.1 sooner or later, i suppose it will be sooner...
This is a good reason to be spooky. I would prefer something more than just
supposing sooner or later.
> And by the way you are by no means forced to use the same compiler as
> the book does. Just stick with 2.95.3 if it is more to your liking.
That means, of course, staying with 3.3. The patches to the other packages
in a new book won't work with 2.95.3.
> I use gcc-3.1 exclusively since the day it come out and i think its
> great, "-O3 -march=athlon-mp" anyone?
Same question: Why do you think it's great.
> I also postulate (of course without any authority and with just a
> single test i ran) that gcc-3.1 gives better performance.
> I did the following in my usual working environment on always
> the same machine, with BLFS systems build using gcc-2.95.3 and 3.1:
> :> time bzip2 mozilla.tar (mozilla.tar beeing about 250MB)
> Thats what i got:
> 1 .) gcc-2.95.3: -O3 -march=i686 :
> 209.47 user
> 1.18 system
> 3:30.77 elapsed
> 2 .) gcc-3.1: -O3 -march=i686:
> 3 .) gcc-3.1: -O3 -march=athlon-mp:
> About 10% better performance from 1.) to 3.) !
Assuming that this is more than just anecdotal, is a 10% savings in compile
time worth the hassle. Surely, there is more.
Quantum Mechanics: The dreams stuff is made of
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