From owner-freebsd-hackers  Sun Jul  7 02:41:20 1996
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id CAA11233
          for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 7 Jul 1996 02:41:20 -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 CAA11228
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Sun, 7 Jul 1996 02:41:13 -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 CAA01347; Sun, 7 Jul 1996 02:41:07 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199607070941.CAA01347@rah.star-gate.com>
X-Mailer: exmh version 1.6.5 12/11/95
To: grog@lemis.de (Greg Lehey)
cc: hackers@freebsd.org (FreeBSD Hackers)
Subject: Re: gcc lies? 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 07 Jul 1996 10:59:21 +0200."
             <199607070859.KAA15494@allegro.lemis.de> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Sun, 07 Jul 1996 02:41:06 -0700
From: Amancio Hasty <hasty@rah.star-gate.com>
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk


Hmmm... 5.4 vs 14 seconds -- sounds to me like a good reason to 
use gcc-1.42.

I can see using gcc-1.42 for doing development once you get past the
stage of *gross* bugs for the final compilation phase switch 
over to gcc-2.xxx.

	Tnks!
	Amancio

>From The Desk Of Greg Lehey :
> Amancio Hasty writes:
> >
> > Dumb question , is gcc-1.42 a lot faster than gcc-2.x?
> 
> Good question.  The answer is 'yes', at least to go by what I've just
> tried.  I compiled cccp.c (the GNU preprocessor) with both compilers
> on a P133 with BSD/OS 2.1.  cc (1.42) took about 5.4 seconds, gcc
> (2.7.2) took about 14 seconds.
> 
> I think Michael's right, though.  It's more a question of
> compatibility than anything else.
> 
> Greg