From owner-freebsd-current Mon Feb 11 18:45:57 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from newman2.bestweb.net (newman2.bestweb.net [209.94.102.67]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02DF537B443 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 18:16:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from okeeffe.bestweb.net (okeefe.bestweb.net [209.94.100.110]) by newman2.bestweb.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C06DF23071; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 21:16:41 -0500 (EST) Received: by okeeffe.bestweb.net (Postfix, from userid 0) id 1A9B59F281; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 21:11:47 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 10:50:53 -0800 From: "David O'Brien" To: Wilko Bulte Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: How about gcj? (Re: Not committing WARNS settings...) Reply-To: obrien@FreeBSD.ORG Message-Id: <20020212021147.1A9B59F281@okeeffe.bestweb.net> Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 07:39:36PM +0100, Wilko Bulte wrote: > > 3.1 will also be slower on the Alpha. It is really an issue of the code > > generator. Generating x86 code on an Alpha is faster than generating > > [native] Alpha code. The Alpha code generator is slow. It may be that > > all 64 bit or RISC GCC code generation is slow -- we will see soon for > > the sparc64. > > Thanks. So it is the code generator itself, I always thought it would be > the optimiser that needs more time to do a decent job on a RISC. I lumped those two together. -- -- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message