From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 25 19:05:27 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31D0316A4CE; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 19:05:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from cain.gsoft.com.au (cain.gsoft.com.au [203.31.81.10]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A32D943FD7; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 19:05:24 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from doconnor@gsoft.com.au) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cain.gsoft.com.au (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hAQ35Lhk079576; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:35:21 +1030 (CST) (envelope-from doconnor@gsoft.com.au) From: "Daniel O'Connor" To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, "David O'Brien" Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:35:19 +1030 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.3 References: <16322.26365.159173.946033@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> <200311251507.55403.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> <20031126025505.GB56876@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <20031126025505.GB56876@dragon.nuxi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200311261335.19962.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> X-Spam-Score: -4.7 () CARRIAGE_RETURNS,IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES,SPAM_PHRASE_01_02,USER_AGENT,USER_AGENT_KMAIL X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.16 (www . roaringpenguin . com / mimedefang) cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 03:05:27 -0000 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