Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | From | Peter Chubb <> | Date | Wed, 5 Feb 2003 13:45:00 +1100 | Subject | Re: gcc 2.95 vs 3.21 performance |
| |
>>>>> "Bryan" == Bryan Andersen <bryan@bogonomicon.net> writes:
Bryan> Personal opinion here but I know it is also held by many Bryan> developers I know and work with. I'd rather have a compiler Bryan> that produces correct and fast code but ran slow than one that Bryan> produces slow or bad code and runs fast. Remember compilation Bryan> is done far less often than run time execution. Yes I too Bryan> noticed a difference when I switched over to 3.2 but I also Bryan> noticed some of my code speed up.
A different personal opinion: I'd prefer a compiler than can be told either to run fast and produce correct but suboptimal code or to produce the fastest correct code it can.
While developing, the compile/test/think/edit cycle is dominated by compile time for me. So fast compilation is important while developing algorithms.
-- Dr Peter Chubb peterc@gelato.unsw.edu.au You are lost in a maze of BitKeeper repositories, all almost the same. - 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/
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |