On November 24, 2001 05:01 pm, Luigi Genoni wrote:
> 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:
> > > > 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
Interesting, but not as interesting as knowing what the results are for
non-fp code, since we are talking about kernel compilation.
-- Daniel - 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