From owner-freebsd-current Wed May 27 13:53:00 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA27193 for freebsd-current-outgoing; Wed, 27 May 1998 13:53:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from ns1.yes.no (ns1.yes.no [195.119.24.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA27175 for ; Wed, 27 May 1998 13:52:49 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from eivind@bitbox.follo.net) Received: from bitbox.follo.net (bitbox.follo.net [195.204.143.218]) by ns1.yes.no (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA10070; Wed, 27 May 1998 20:52:36 GMT Received: (from eivind@localhost) by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) id WAA06585; Wed, 27 May 1998 22:52:29 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <19980527225223.43868@follo.net> Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 22:52:23 +0200 From: Eivind Eklund To: Amancio Hasty Cc: "John S. Dyson" , current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Fix for undefined "__error" and discussion of shared object versioning References: <19980526225254.45152@follo.net> <199805270007.RAA06110@rah.star-gate.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.89.1i In-Reply-To: <199805270007.RAA06110@rah.star-gate.com>; from Amancio Hasty on Tue, May 26, 1998 at 05:07:56PM -0700 Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Tue, May 26, 1998 at 05:07:56PM -0700, Amancio Hasty wrote: > Since, most of the time over here all I do is compile this or compile that > makes me interested on the speed of the compiler . for instance, if it > can speed up make world that would be great and it the compiler generates > decent code all the much better. For selected applications I am very > interested on the code generation . I'm interested in code generation more than compile speed everywhere. Anyway; here are the results: gcc -O2 -pipe: 11.41s (average over 3 runs) tcc -Ysystem: 8.35s (average over 3 runs) tcc -Ysystem, -Wt,-X: 8.21s (average over 3 runs) gcc -pipe: 6.94s (average over 3 runs) tcc defaults to all optimizations on; I'd guess that's about equal to -O2. -Wt,-X disables "all" optimizations - this seems to only disable high-level optimizations, and not peepholes, which probably take the largest amount of time. Before each set of test runs I did a 'get-everything-into-the-cache' run with the same options, to avoid that penalty. The runs were done from a DTP RAID-1 array with a 16MB cache in front, so disk access times should not be a significant part. Eivind. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message