Re: gcc 3.3: largest *and* smallest kernels (was Re: [PATCH] Isapnp warning)

• Next message: Alan Cox: "Re: [patch] SiS IRQ router 96x detection (2.5.69) ..."
• Previous message: Alan Cox: "Re: [2.5 patch] remove an unused function from wd7000.c"
• In reply to: Barry K. Nathan: "gcc 3.3: largest *and* smallest kernels (was Re: [PATCH] Isapnp warning)"
• Next in thread: Daniel Phillips: "GCC speed (was [PATCH] Isapnp warning)"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Sul, 2003-06-22 at 06:39, Barry K. Nathan wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 21, 2003 at 07:17:05PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Compared to 2.95.3, gcc-3.3 takes 1.5x as long to compile, and produces a
> > kernel which is 200k larger.
> >
> > It is simply worthless.
>
> gcc 2.95.3 does compile faster than 3.3, but I don't think 3.3 is simply
> worthless:

With 2.95 people did benchmarks a long time back and -Os was outperforming
-O2 on some platforms at least. I'd bet the same is true with 3.3 on a
celeron too

-
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/

• Next message: Alan Cox: "Re: [patch] SiS IRQ router 96x detection (2.5.69) ..."
• Previous message: Alan Cox: "Re: [2.5 patch] remove an unused function from wd7000.c"
• In reply to: Barry K. Nathan: "gcc 3.3: largest *and* smallest kernels (was Re: [PATCH] Isapnp warning)"
• Next in thread: Daniel Phillips: "GCC speed (was [PATCH] Isapnp warning)"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jun 23 2003 - 22:00:37 EST