Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:35:19 +1030 From: "Daniel O'Connor" <doconnor@gsoft.com.au> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, "David O'Brien" <obrien@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh Message-ID: <200311261335.19962.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> In-Reply-To: <20031126025505.GB56876@dragon.nuxi.com> References: <16322.26365.159173.946033@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> <200311251507.55403.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> <20031126025505.GB56876@dragon.nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wednesday 26 November 2003 13:25, David O'Brien wrote: > On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 03:07:55PM +1030, Daniel O'Connor wrote: > > What about the newer version of gcc? That is considerably slower than > > previous versions, but I don't see people screaming to have it removed. > > Uh... you must not know what you are talking about. GCC *COMPILES* > slower as it does a better job of optimizing (which adds time to the > compiling time). The produced optimzied binaries have quicker > *RUN-TIME*s. I'm talking about compile time. > Why would any one want to call for a compiler to be removed that produces > faster binaries?? Ahh, why indeed.. -- Daniel O'Connor software and network engineer for Genesis Software - http://www.gsoft.com.au "The nice thing about standards is that there are so many of them to choose from." -- Andrew Tanenbaum GPG Fingerprint - 9A8C 569F 685A D928 5140 AE4B 319B 41F4 5D17 FDD5
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200311261335.19962.doconnor>