Re: gcc-2.95.3 vs gcc-3.0.4

[Simon Kirby <sim@netnation.com>]

On Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 09:22:18PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:

> Larry McVoy wrote:
> > 
> > Try 2.72, it's almost twice as fast as 2.95 for builds.  For BK, at least,
> > we don't see any benefit from the slower compiler, the code runs the same
> > either way.
> > 
> 
> Amen.
> 
> I want 2.7.2.3 back, but it was the name:value struct initialiser
> bug which killed that off.  2.91.66 isn't much slower than 2.7.x,
> and it's what I use.
> 
> "almost twice as fast"?  That means that 2.7.2 vs 3.x is getting
> up to a 3x difference.  Does anyone know why?

Me too.  Everybody says "it's the final code that matters", but a lot of
us would be more productive if the thing would just compile faster.  I've
done the same (used 2723 during development/debugging) and it helped
quite a lot.

I remember Borland Turbo Pascal's compiler... Yes, yes, but that thing
compiled insane amounts of code in split seconds on 386 hardware.

Simon-

[  Stormix Technologies Inc.  ][  NetNation Communications Inc. ]
[       sim@stormix.com       ][       sim@netnation.com        ]
[ Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of my employers. ]