Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 06:51:00 +0200 (CEST) From: Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> To: Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why Clang Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206190649170.1823@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> In-Reply-To: <20120618210049.GA2508@hemlock.hydra> References: <201206182014.q5IKEVdQ014212@mail.r-bonomi.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206182228220.88997@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <20120618210049.GA2508@hemlock.hydra>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> be more exact. > > I believe Robert Bonomi (you didn't include attribution for the previous > email, I notice) *was* more exact, in that the rest of his email > explained what he thought of your glossing over the various factors that > might contribute to binary size. > > I notice you ignored most of it in your response, too. or maybe missed. So please tell me finally what is wrong in measuring speed by measuring time of execution doing same things? What i should measure? time in heavens? > I can generally puzzle out what caused various GCC warning and error > messages when trying to compile my own code, given comparison of what's strange but i don't have a problem - and i always set -Wall when using gcc as 99% of warnings are actually errors.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.1206190649170.1823>