Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 10:42:40 +0200 (CEST) From: Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at> To: "David W. Chapman Jr." <dwcjr@inethouston.net> Cc: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>, <cvs-all@freebsd.org>, <cvs-committers@freebsd.org>, "David O'Brien" <obrien@freebsd.org>, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: GCC bugs (was: cvs commit: src/sys/alpha/include atomic.h) Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.44.0205141039080.78108-100000@naos.dbai.tuwien.ac.at> In-Reply-To: <20020512161042.GB52586@leviathan.inethouston.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 12 May 2002, David W. Chapman Jr. wrote: >>> And if the bug you are seeing, *any* bug you are seeing, with GCC 3.1 >>> or later is a regression from *any* previous version of GCC, please >>> drop me a note and I will upgrade the priority of your PR so that it >>> has highest chance of being fixed for GCC 3.1.1 or GCC 3.2. >> Do efficiency bugs count? makeworld is about 50% slower with gcc-3.1 >> than with gcc-2.9x. > Is that because you can't make with -j or comparing old make > buildworld to new make buildworld without -j ? That'd be the critical distinction. If you have a reproducible test case, ideally a single file, where GCC 3.1.x takes significantly longer (say, more than 10 or 20 percent) than GCC 2.95.x, I'd consider this a regression. Please submit such test cases via the GCC GNATS system and drop me a note; while I probably won't be the one to fix the problem, I can (and will) try to reproduce it and boost the priority of your PR! Gerald -- Gerald "Jerry" pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at http://www.dbai.tuwien.ac.at/~pfeifer/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.44.0205141039080.78108-100000>