Re: GCC3.0 Produce REALLY slower code!

["Alexander V. Bilichenko" <dmor@7ka.mipt.ru>]

Although I just wanna say that there is no reason trying compile kernel with
new shiny GCC 3.0 ;-). The result will be in kernel slowdown.

Maybe, we can try to use Intel C compiler for some important ;-) (beta
version work with linux).

Best regards,
Alexander                  mailto:www@2ka.mipt.ru
------------------------------------------------------
Let start the war, said Meggy
------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matthias Andree" <matthias.andree@stud.uni-dortmund.de>
To: "Alexander V. Bilichenko" <dmor@7ka.mipt.ru>
Cc: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 1:16 PM
Subject: Re: GCC3.0 Produce REALLY slower code!


> On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, Alexander V. Bilichenko wrote:
>
> > Hello All!
> > Some tests that I have recently check out.
> > kernel compiled with 3.0 (2.4.5) function call: 1000000 iteration. 3%
slower
> > than 2.95.
> > test example - hash table add/remove - 4% slower (compiled both
> > with -O2 -march=i686).
> > Why have this version been released?
>
> Because it comes with various other improvements, among them better
> error detection, better C++ support, integrated GCJ (but regretfully
> still without Ada 95), to name a few reasons.
>
> 3% to 4% loss in a first release of a new major release is not a big
> deal, although I found similar results on leafnode's texpire.
> However, 3% do not warrant me spending my time complaining. Maybe some
> optimization is missing, maybe other operations than the ones you
> checked are faster. So there.
>
> You might run an entire benchmark suite and report back, tough. :-)
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>