From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Apr 25 16:23:54 2005 Return-Path: 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 5E24816A4CE for ; Mon, 25 Apr 2005 16:23:54 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ns1.xcllnt.net (209-128-86-226.bayarea.net [209.128.86.226]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F376243D55 for ; Mon, 25 Apr 2005 16:23:53 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from marcel@xcllnt.net) Received: from [192.168.4.250] (dhcp50.pn.xcllnt.net [192.168.4.250]) by ns1.xcllnt.net (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j3PGNhZw060439; Mon, 25 Apr 2005 09:23:43 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from marcel@xcllnt.net) In-Reply-To: <20050425145206.GM91852@voodoo.oberon.net> 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> <20050425145206.GM91852@voodoo.oberon.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v622) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <657be6bca0955ea1d1571a92f074e43f@xcllnt.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Marcel Moolenaar Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 09:23:42 -0700 To: Kirill Ponomarew X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.622) cc: current@freebsd.org cc: Mike Tancsa cc: Julian Elischer cc: Kris Kennaway 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 16:23:54 -0000 On Apr 25, 2005, at 7:52 AM, Kirill Ponomarew wrote: > 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. Not to pick on you, Kirill, but rather in general: That entirely depends on the optimization level and the configuration. I measured a small degradation (<5%) at -O3 on ia64. So, let's find out how the 25% compile-time performance improvement was achieved before we use it as an argument in any discussion, shall we? -- Marcel Moolenaar USPA: A-39004 marcel@xcllnt.net