On Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 04:59:49AM -0400, safemode wrote:
> > Yes, gcc3 is (well at least NOW) a piece of shit. It produces BIGGER and
> > SLOWER binaries ... Checked on: Athlon, AMD K6-2.
> > With the same gcc command line ...
>
> gcc 3.0.2 produces lame binaries that are 45 seconds faster encoding
> 74minutes of audio than the gcc 2.95.4 binaries with the same cflags.
> gcc 2.95.4 produces a binary of 39432 bytes when gcc 3.0.2 with the same
> flags on the same source produces a binary of 37452 bytes. I then tested it
> with lame. gcc 2.95.4 produced a binary of 245664 bytes and 3.0.2 produced
> one of 238016 bytes. Same exact cflags and settings.
> So basically my testing absolutely contradicts your statement. So who is
> right?
Well, you may be right. I got my results with the first (pre?)release
of gcc3. I'm going to try gcc 3.0.2 now ... Thanx for the correction.
-- --[ Gábor Lénárt ]---[ Vivendi Telecom Hungary ]---------[ lgb@lgb.hu ]-- U have 8 bit comp or chip of them and it's unused or to be sold? Call me! -------[ +36 30 2270823 ]------> LGB <-----[ Linux/UNIX/8bit 4ever ]----- - 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 : Sun Sep 30 2001 - 21:01:11 EST