I would be interested to know on which processor your are seeing those
In fact i do not have doubts that on somethuing like an alpha
gcc 3.0.2 is faster.
Maybe it could be faster also on PIV, I do not know. I never tried gcc
3.0.2, i just used gcc 3.0.1 on Athlon systems, but I am
going to gcc 3.0.2 snapshots as soon.
On Sun, 30 Sep 2001, [iso-8859-2] Gábor Lénárt wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 04:59:49AM -0400, safemode wrote:
> > > Yes, gcc3 is (well at least NOW) a piece of shit. It produces BIGGER and
> > > SLOWER binaries ... Checked on: Athlon, AMD K6-2.
> > > With the same gcc command line ...
> > gcc 3.0.2 produces lame binaries that are 45 seconds faster encoding
> > 74minutes of audio than the gcc 2.95.4 binaries with the same cflags.
> > gcc 2.95.4 produces a binary of 39432 bytes when gcc 3.0.2 with the same
> > flags on the same source produces a binary of 37452 bytes. I then tested it
> > with lame. gcc 2.95.4 produced a binary of 245664 bytes and 3.0.2 produced
> > one of 238016 bytes. Same exact cflags and settings.
> > So basically my testing absolutely contradicts your statement. So who is
> > right?
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Sep 30 2001 - 21:01:12 EST