From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Apr 25 15:19:01 2005
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
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 4F4DE16A4CE
	for <current@freebsd.org>; Mon, 25 Apr 2005 15:19:01 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from cs1.cs.huji.ac.il (cs1.cs.huji.ac.il [132.65.16.10])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01A2543D46
	for <current@freebsd.org>; Mon, 25 Apr 2005 15:19:01 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from danny@cs.huji.ac.il)
Received: from pampa.cs.huji.ac.il ([132.65.80.32])
	by cs1.cs.huji.ac.il with esmtp
	id 1DQ5MS-000FUi-51; Mon, 25 Apr 2005 18:19:00 +0300
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.7.0 06/18/2004 with nmh-1.0.4
To: Kirill Ponomarew <krion@voodoo.oberon.net>
In-reply-to: Your message of Mon, 25 Apr 2005 16:52:06 +0200 .
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 18:19:00 +0300
From: Danny Braniss <danny@cs.huji.ac.il>
Message-ID: <E1DQ5MS-000FUi-51@cs1.cs.huji.ac.il>
cc: current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: FreeBSD 6 is coming too fast 
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 15:19:01 -0000

> 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.

so that closes the argument! i can do a makeworld in about 25 minutes, cutting
it down by 6 minutes will not make any real difference, but it will take
much longer to recode all the 'usupported features'. if you have an
application that takes hours to compile, then please, go ahead and use GCC 4.

my 5c,
	danny