Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 25 Feb 2002 00:07:42 -0800 | From | Simon Kirby <> | Subject | Re: gcc-2.95.3 vs gcc-3.0.4 |
| |
On Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 09:22:18PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Larry McVoy wrote: > > > > Try 2.72, it's almost twice as fast as 2.95 for builds. For BK, at least, > > we don't see any benefit from the slower compiler, the code runs the same > > either way. > > > > Amen. > > I want 2.7.2.3 back, but it was the name:value struct initialiser > bug which killed that off. 2.91.66 isn't much slower than 2.7.x, > and it's what I use. > > "almost twice as fast"? That means that 2.7.2 vs 3.x is getting > up to a 3x difference. Does anyone know why?
Me too. Everybody says "it's the final code that matters", but a lot of us would be more productive if the thing would just compile faster. I've done the same (used 2723 during development/debugging) and it helped quite a lot.
I remember Borland Turbo Pascal's compiler... Yes, yes, but that thing compiled insane amounts of code in split seconds on 386 hardware.
Simon-
[ Stormix Technologies Inc. ][ NetNation Communications Inc. ] [ sim@stormix.com ][ sim@netnation.com ] [ Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of my employers. ] - 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/
| |