Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 18:23:03 -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: <20020702182303.A94386@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <200207030106.g6316Rwp008905@apollo.backplane.com>; from dillon@apollo.backplane.com on Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 06:06:27PM -0700 References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0206281233500.75410-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> <200207020314.g623Eke5038019@apollo.backplane.com> <20020702164756.E70767@dragon.nuxi.com> <200207030106.g6316Rwp008905@apollo.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020702182303.A94386>