From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 25 Jun 2001 07:32:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 25 Jun 2001 07:32:08 -0400 Received: from 7ka-campus-gw.mipt.ru ([194.85.83.97]:60166 "EHLO 7ka-campus-gw.mipt.ru") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 25 Jun 2001 07:31:56 -0400 Message-ID: <00c901c0fd6a$5f973680$d55355c2@microsoft> From: "Alexander V. Bilichenko" To: "Matthias Andree" Cc: In-Reply-To: <001301c0fcff$47c05160$d55355c2@microsoft> <20010625111657.C13348@emma1.emma.line.org> Subject: Re: GCC3.0 Produce REALLY slower code! Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 15:31:27 +0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2488.0001 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2488.0001 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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" To: "Alexander V. Bilichenko" Cc: 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/ >