Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 16:52:06 +0200 From: Kirill Ponomarew <krion@voodoo.oberon.net> To: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> Cc: Mike Tancsa <mike@sentex.net> Subject: Re: FreeBSD 6 is coming too fast Message-ID: <20050425145206.GM91852@voodoo.oberon.net> In-Reply-To: <426D0252.5050805@samsco.org> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050424204611.072105a0@64.7.153.2> <20050425010242.GA44110@xor.obsecurity.org> <6.2.1.2.0.20050424210422.03d22990@64.7.153.2> <20050425014453.GA59981@xor.obsecurity.org> <426C6B1D.3040704@elischer.org> <20050425061459.GA33247@xor.obsecurity.org> <20050425062106.GB91852@voodoo.oberon.net> <426CF3DE.4000409@samsco.org> <20050425144108.GK91852@voodoo.oberon.net> <426D0252.5050805@samsco.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 08:44:34AM -0600, Scott Long wrote: > >No, I'm not going to do it because of lack of knowledge, there are > >people who have more experience with it than me. > > > Well, as I said in another email, switching to GCC 4 just because of > dubious "25% faster" (faster at what? compiling? resulting generated > code? crashing?) claims in the changelog is not a terribly good > reason =-) 25% faster to compile the code, not running it. > It seems that every time GCC claims to get "faster", our > buildworld times increase by 10%. Maybe the generated code is > better and faster, but it's no secret that gcc spends a lot more > CPU cycles on code genreation and optimization than it did in the > 2.x series. Note also that the GCC 4.0 changelog mentions that > the -O0 flag is faster; that's wonderful, but has no practical > value to real people. -Kirill
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050425145206.GM91852>