On Sat, 24 Nov 2001, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> 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.
>
on sparc64 nor gcc 2.95.3 nor 3.0.2 can be used to compile the kernel, at
less for what i know, you have to stay with egcs 64 bit compiler.
-
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