From owner-freebsd-hackers  Sun Jul  7 01:31:09 1996
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id BAA06814
          for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 7 Jul 1996 01:31:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rah.star-gate.com (rah.star-gate.com [204.188.121.18])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id BAA06808
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Sun, 7 Jul 1996 01:31:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rah.star-gate.com (localhost.v-site.net [127.0.0.1]) by rah.star-gate.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id BAA00607; Sun, 7 Jul 1996 01:30:52 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199607070830.BAA00607@rah.star-gate.com>
X-Mailer: exmh version 1.6.5 12/11/95
To: grog@lemis.de (Greg Lehey)
cc: michaelh@cet.co.jp (Michael Hancock),
        hackers@freebsd.org (FreeBSD Hackers)
Subject: Re: gcc lies? 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 07 Jul 1996 09:42:36 +0200."
             <199607070742.JAA15222@allegro.lemis.de> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Sun, 07 Jul 1996 01:30:51 -0700
From: Amancio Hasty <hasty@rah.star-gate.com>
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

Dumb question , is gcc-1.42 a lot faster than gcc-2.x?

	Tnks,
	Amancio

>From The Desk Of Greg Lehey :
> Michael Hancock writes:
> >
> > This is probably why BSDI uses gcc 1.x for the kernel and gives their
> > screaming customers 2.7.2.
> 
> Hey, you're right, even BSD/OS 2.1 still uses gcc 1.42.  You'd think
> they would have got their act together by now.  But I remember the
> background: there was something to do with kernel structures being
> aligned differently under gcc 2.x.  You'd think they would have it
> fixed by now, though.
> 
> Greg
>