Re: gcc-2.95.3 vs gcc-3.0.4

Larry McVoy
2002-02-23T04:45:16Z

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.

On Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 11:40:09PM -0500, Justin Piszcz wrote:
> Wow, not sure if anyone here has done any benchmarks, but look at these
> build times:
> Kernel 2.4.17 did compile with 3.0.4, just much much slower than 2.95.3
> however.
>
> GCC 2.95.3
> Boot sector 512 bytes.
> Setup is 2628 bytes.
> System is 899 kB
> make[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/linux-2.4.17/arch/i386/boot'
> 287.28user 23.99system 5:15.81elapsed 98%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata
> 0maxresident)k
> 0inputs+0outputs (514864major+684661minor)pagefaults 0swaps
>
> GCC 3.0.4
> Boot sector 512 bytes.
> Setup is 2628 bytes.
> System is 962 kB
> warning: kernel is too big for standalone boot from floppy
> make[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/linux-2.4.17/arch/i386/boot'
> 406.87user 28.38system 7:23.68elapsed 98%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata
> 0maxresident)k
> 0inputs+0outputs (546562major+989237minor)pagefaults 0swaps
>
>
> -
> 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/

--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm