From owner-freebsd-current Wed Mar 15 20:31:30 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from alcanet.com.au (mail.alcanet.com.au [203.62.196.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AE3937BB94 for ; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 20:31:25 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jeremyp@gsmx07.alcatel.com.au) Received: by border.alcanet.com.au id <115387>; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 15:31:42 +1100 Content-return: prohibited From: Peter Jeremy Subject: Re: panic during make depend In-reply-to: <38D05C92.4F85C798@cvzoom.net>; from dmmiller@cvzoom.net on Thu, Mar 16, 2000 at 03:04:00PM +1100 To: Donn Miller Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Message-Id: <00Mar16.153142est.115387@border.alcanet.com.au> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii References: <4.3.2.20000315172056.00bf7740@mixcom.com> <38D05C92.4F85C798@cvzoom.net> Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 15:31:41 +1100 Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On 2000-Mar-16 15:04:00 +1100, Donn Miller wrote: >Basically, gcc is a very good compiler. But, it isn't exactly the >best compiler to use for optimization. Someone told me that Sun's and >DEC's compilers, for example, blow away gcc in terms of speed. But, >they aren't portable. I think it's very dependent on the target architecture and how popular that architecture is. Traditionally, the M68K and SPARC families were the most popular, and gcc generated the best (or equal best) code on them. The i386 is now a more popular family but, at the high end, optimisation is restricted by the difficulty of obtaining accurate documentation. The Alpha is a very difficult processor to generate good code for (and I suspect the IA64 will be worse). DEC (and now Compaq) have put a lot of effort into tweaking their compiler - I don't believe anything like the same amount of effort has been expended on the gcc backend (and I wouldn't expect it). Peter To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message