Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 16:47:56 -0700 From: "David O'Brien" <dev-null@NUXI.com> To: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> Cc: FreeBSD current users <current@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: -current results (was something funny with soft updates?) Message-ID: <20020702164756.E70767@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <200207020314.g623Eke5038019@apollo.backplane.com>; from dillon@apollo.backplane.com on Mon, Jul 01, 2002 at 08:14:46PM -0700 References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0206281233500.75410-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> <200207020314.g623Eke5038019@apollo.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jul 01, 2002 at 08:14:46PM -0700, Matthew Dillon wrote: > My conclusion is that softupdates is working fine and (A) the new GCC > is a whole lot less efficient then the old GCC You really cannot say this -- GCC 3.1 does things 2.95 doesn't. 3.1 has a totally rewritten code scheduler. People can't get Pentium-4 and Athlon tbird specific optimizations for free. You almost seem to be making a claim on the quality of generated code, vs. just the run-time of the compiler. The two are different. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020702164756.E70767>