Re: gcc-2.95.3 vs gcc-3.0.4

From: Paul G. Allen (pgallen@randomlogic.com)
Date: Sat Feb 23 2002 - 04:25:03 EST

Next message: Russell King: "Re: [PATCH] only irq-safe atomic ops"
Previous message: Barry K. Nathan: "Re: [PATCHSET] Linux 2.4.18-rc3-jam1"
In reply to: Andrew Morton: "Re: gcc-2.95.3 vs gcc-3.0.4"
Next in thread: bert hubert: "Re: gcc-2.95.3 vs gcc-3.0.4"
Reply: bert hubert: "Re: gcc-2.95.3 vs gcc-3.0.4"
Reply: gmack@innerfire.net: "Re: gcc-2.95.3 vs gcc-3.0.4"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> hugang wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 22 Feb 2002 23:40:09 -0500
> > Justin Piszcz <war@starband.net> wrote:
> >
> > ...
> > > GCC 2.95.3
> > ...
> > > System is 899 kB
> > ...
> > > GCC 3.0.4
> > ...
> > > System is 962 kB
> > ...
> > >
> > Why the system size is different. Possble your use differ config.
>

The important thing is:

Which compiler, of all of the different versions, generates the most
stable and fastest code. Compile speed and kernel size is not NEARLY as
important as performance. So, which compiler fits the bill?

PGA

-- 
Paul G. Allen
Owner, Sr. Engineer, Security Specialist
Random Logic/Dream Park
www.randomlogic.com
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Russell King: "Re: [PATCH] only irq-safe atomic ops"
Previous message: Barry K. Nathan: "Re: [PATCHSET] Linux 2.4.18-rc3-jam1"
In reply to: Andrew Morton: "Re: gcc-2.95.3 vs gcc-3.0.4"
Next in thread: bert hubert: "Re: gcc-2.95.3 vs gcc-3.0.4"
Reply: bert hubert: "Re: gcc-2.95.3 vs gcc-3.0.4"
Reply: gmack@innerfire.net: "Re: gcc-2.95.3 vs gcc-3.0.4"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Feb 23 2002 - 21:00:49 EST