From owner-freebsd-current Tue Jul 2 18:23: 6 2002 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 79C3E37B400 for ; Tue, 2 Jul 2002 18:23:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dragon.nuxi.com (trang.nuxi.com [66.92.13.169]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F037643E3B for ; Tue, 2 Jul 2002 18:23:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from obrien@NUXI.com) Received: from dragon.nuxi.com (obrien@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dragon.nuxi.com (8.12.5/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g631N3UI094421; Tue, 2 Jul 2002 18:23:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from obrien@dragon.nuxi.com) Received: (from obrien@localhost) by dragon.nuxi.com (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g631N3YZ094420; Tue, 2 Jul 2002 18:23:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 18:23:03 -0700 From: "David O'Brien" To: Matthew Dillon Cc: FreeBSD current users Subject: Re: -current results (was something funny with soft updates?) Message-ID: <20020702182303.A94386@dragon.nuxi.com> Reply-To: current@FreeBSD.ORG Mail-Followup-To: David O'Brien , Matthew Dillon , FreeBSD current users References: <200207020314.g623Eke5038019@apollo.backplane.com> <20020702164756.E70767@dragon.nuxi.com> <200207030106.g6316Rwp008905@apollo.backplane.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200207030106.g6316Rwp008905@apollo.backplane.com>; from dillon@apollo.backplane.com on Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 06:06:27PM -0700 X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 5.0-CURRENT Organization: The NUXI BSD group X-Pgp-Rsa-Fingerprint: B7 4D 3E E9 11 39 5F A3 90 76 5D 69 58 D9 98 7A X-Pgp-Rsa-Keyid: 1024/34F9F9D5 Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 06:06:27PM -0700, Matthew Dillon wrote: > However, since you asked, I will say that I am not at all impressed with > GCC3 vs GCC2. I've looked at a considerable amount of code with objdump > between -stable and -current and GCC3 doesn't really seem to improve > things much at all and in some run-time tests it seems to produce even > worse code then GCC2 did.... and GCC2 produced pretty bad code. I see > no improvement in cpu-intensive applications when I run a GCC2-generated > binary and a GCC3-generated binary on the same machine, side by side. If you can quantify this, it is something we can pass on to the GCC folks. They are rather receptive right now due to wanting GCC 3.1.1 to be very high quality. Run-time of the compiler isn't anything that can be fixed right now -- but if you show how small (but not 3 line trivial) programs run slower that would be of interest. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message