> > People keep extolling the virtues of gcc 3.2 to me, which I'm
> > reluctant to switch to, since it compiles so much slower. But
> > it supposedly generates better code, so I thought I'd compile
> > the kernel with both and compare the results. This is gcc 2.95
> > and 3.2.1 from debian unstable on a 16-way NUMA-Q. The kernbench
> > tests still use 2.95 for the compile-time stuff.
> >
> > The results below leaves me distinctly unconvinced by the supposed
> > merits of modern gcc's. Not really better or worse, within experimental
> > error. But much slower to compile things with.
>
> What kernel was kernbench compiling ? The reason I'm asking is that
> 2.5s (and more recent 2.4.21pre's) will use -march flags for more
> aggressive optimisation on newer gcc's.
> If you want to compare apples to apples, make sure you choose
> something like i386 in the processor menu, and then it'll always
> use -march=i386 instead of getting fancy with things like -march=pentium4
Kernbench compiles 2.4.17, because I'm old, slow and lazy, and that
was what was around when I started doing this test ;-)
But the point is still the same ... even if it is doing more agressive
optimisation, it's not actually buying us anything (at least for the kernel)
M.
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 07 2003 - 22:00:15 EST