On Fri, 23 Nov 2001, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
> At 18:30 23/11/01, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> >On November 23, 2001 02:59 pm, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
> > > At 13:51 23/11/01, war wrote:
> > > >You should use gcc-2.95.3.
> > >
> > > That's not true. gcc-2.96 as provided with RedHat 7.2 is perfectly fine.
> > >
> > > gcc-3x OTOH is not a good idea at the moment.
> >
> >Do you have any particular reason for saying that?
>
> I haven't done any measurements myself but from what I have read, gcc-3.x
> produces significantly slower code than gcc-2.96. I know I should try
> myself some time... but if that is indeed true that is a very good reason
> to stick with gcc-2.96.
>
I did some serious bench.
On all my codes, using eavilly floating point computation, binaries
built with gcc 3.0.2 are about 5% slower that the ones built with 2.95.3
on athlon processor with athlon optimizzations.
On the other side, on sparclinux, same codes compiled with gcc 3.0.2 are
really faster, about 20%, that with 2.95.3
Luigi
-
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 Nov 30 2001 - 21:00:17 EST