From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Oct 4 19:38:40 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F99B16A4CE for ; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 19:38:40 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mailhub.sweetdreamsracing.biz (mailhub.sweetdreamsracing.biz [66.92.171.106]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED1EF43D2D for ; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 19:38:39 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from culverk@sweetdreamsracing.biz) Received: by mailhub.sweetdreamsracing.biz (Postfix, from userid 80) id 734C061C5; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 15:36:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from 141.156.69.109 ([141.156.69.109]) by www.sweetdreamsracing.biz (Horde) with HTTP for ; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 15:36:04 -0400 Message-ID: <20041004153604.qo8cwwk88w40w08o@www.sweetdreamsracing.biz> Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 15:36:04 -0400 From: Kenneth Culver To: Josh Hansen References: <1096915733.41619b153c86a@webmail.inf.ufrgs.br> <20041004145927.74ad8b47.wmoran@potentialtech.com> <4161A218.6060506@josh.aros.net> In-Reply-To: <4161A218.6060506@josh.aros.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 4.0-cvs cc: questions@freebsd.org cc: Bill Moran cc: regi@inf.ufrgs.br Subject: Re: C compiler X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 19:38:40 -0000 Quoting Josh Hansen : > Bill Moran wrote: > >> regi@inf.ufrgs.br wrote: >> >> >>> Hello, >>> >>> I=B4ve installed FreeBSD 5.2.1 in my PC machine. I compiled my own >>> programs and started to running them. For my surprise, I checked that >>> FreeBSD programs spent almost 50% more time than the same program compil= ed >>> to linux. I checked several compile options, but it did not have=20 >>> good results. >>> >> >> 5.2.1 is not a strong performer. It's ALPHA code. >> >> If you want to do performance testing, either use 4.10, or work with the >> 5.3 BETAs. 5.2.1 isn't supposed to be fast yet. >> >> > I really don't think the problem is that simple. How about either > giving him a real answer or none at all? > But the problem IS that simple. 5.2.1 wasn't meant to be fast, however in 5.= 3, developers have worked hard to make several performance improvements, and it shows. I'd say his answer hits the nail right on the head. Don't use a version that is known to be slow and for developers only if=20 you want speed and stability. Ken